Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Why a women chess championship?


  • 2 years ago · Quote · #21

    mickx

    Thank you everybody for the rich discussion up to now. My question (as all the similar ones I think) was based on the consideration that intellectual capacities do not depend on gender, race, social status, sexual orientation

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #22

    MattMcan

    Conflagration_Planet wrote:

    I would think that if somebody is really into a game, loves to play it, and all, they wouldn't have be encouraged to play by money.

    It certainly doesn't hurt. :P

    Regardless of the amount of money up for grabs, there are always going to be much easier ways of making money..  The money acts more like an excuse, a reason to do what we love.  A sort of illusory purpose to what is otherwise a game.  In addition it allows for many to at least supplement their income and thereby maybe spend a little less time doing something they don't love as much.

    I think it's important to note, you don't have to win a world championship to earn money with chess.  You don't even have play in tournaments.  The more people become interested in chess, the more opportunity there is to teach it.  While a manager at Mcdonalds might still earn more, if you really love the game, like you say, it's not so much about the money, as it is about allowing you to devote more of your time to what you already love and still sustain yourself.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #23

    mickx

    (continued) they are intrinsic of the person. Having a women chess championship is a bit like having had a women engineering degree, just to incentivate more women to be engineer...

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #24

    MattMcan

    mickx wrote:

    (continued) they are intrinsic of the person. Having a women chess championship is a bit like having had a women engineering degree, just to incentivate more women to be engineer...

    I would say it's more like having a Woman's Engineering Scholarship.  Which also exist.

     

    The difference is that with a degree no one is competing with anyone else.. It's scholarships people compete for and they are frequently segregated to encourage segments of society to pursue certain endeavors.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #25

    ChazR

    Agreed.  

    Women deserve equal rights.

    Problem:  Which rights are they willing to give up?

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #26

    Conflagration_Planet

    MattMcan wrote:
    Conflagration_Planet wrote:

    I would think that if somebody is really into a game, loves to play it, and all, they wouldn't have be encouraged to play by money.

    It certainly doesn't hurt. :P

    Regardless of the amount of money up for grabs, there are always going to be much easier ways of making money..  The money acts more like an excuse, a reason to do what we love.  A sort of illusory purpose to what is otherwise a game.  In addition it allows for many to at least supplement their income and thereby maybe spend a little less time doing something they don't love as much.

    I think it's important to note, you don't have to win a world championship to earn money with chess.  You don't even have play in tournaments.  The more people become interested in chess, the more opportunity there is to teach it.  While a manager at Mcdonalds might still earn more, if you really love the game, like you say, it's not so much about the money, as it is about allowing you to devote more of your time to what you already love and still sustain yourself.

    Makes sense.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #27

    MattMcan

    But having women's titles are like having women's degrees.

    A degree grants a title, much like a chess championship grants a title.

    However Scholarships also offer titles.  For instance "Fullbright Scholar".

    The sole fact something grants a title doesn't make it a complete analogy though.   For instance, as mickx implies a degree does not particularly encourage any segment of society to pursue that field of knowledge, else there would be a women's degree.  A restricted scholarship like a restricted entry tournament is a financial incentive that is frequently used to encourage a segment of society to pursue a field, and as such is a more complete analogy. 

    As to the ratings and ratings based titles available only to women, that's a bit like comparing the USCF to FIDE or my Chessmaster Rating.  It's integral to itself and has no direct bearing outside of the league.  

    Very rare is the analogy that holds true completely though, as we are ultimately talking about two seperate things as such there will be differences.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #28

    gazza31

    Same reason they have a women's snooker championship and darts, will say what we all know they cannot compete with men on an equal footing. Now wether that's down to intelligence concentration levels or whatever they cannot compete. Add fishing to that list as well. All above sports women "should" be able to compete on even level but they cannot.
  • 2 years ago · Quote · #29

    kkk2222

    They have separate events because most major championships in many fields globally are run by men.  For example hell will freeze over before the International Olympic Committee (and what a bunch of w##kers they are) will allow women a dominant position on that board.  And of course men always think they are superior to women when in fact are not.  They just make a much bigger balls up when they get it wrong.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #30

    Stevie65

    Woman are certainly not dumb! For 7 thousand years i've bin carrying these god dam sticks 'n bacon, had big muscles 'n worked my physical ass off. I want to have and i really mean i want to have a child and spend the busy time in the family home, with the radio, tv,friends and all while the kids are at school. somebody has to.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #31

    Scottrf

    kkk2222 wrote:

    They have separate events because most major championships in many fields globally are run by men.  For example hell will freeze over before the International Olympic Committee (and what a bunch of w##kers they are) will allow women a dominant position on that board.  And of course men always think they are superior to women when in fact are not.  They just make a much bigger balls up when they get it wrong.

    Well they are in things which have a male and female championships.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #32

    Stevie65

    Would'nt you just rather challenge him to a game of chess. Or should i quote From the movie... Can't remember title.. The one where 'W.O.P.R' Can't win with TIC TAC TOE. Quote; In a robot voice, "Would'nt you like a nice game of chess Dr" what ever he was called?

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #33

    zborg

    This thread is off and running into oblivion.  Just like the last thread (of many) on the WWCC.  Maniacal, hairsplitting, syllogistic logic.  Chessplayers imbide it, even bathe in it. Go For It.  Knock yourselves out, yet again.  

    Not that there's anything wrong with that.  Laughing 

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #34

    Stevie65

    Just another form of chess.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #35

    zborg

    stevie65 wrote:

    Just another form of chess.

    Indeed, chessplayers are polymaths, inter alia.

    Nice switch on your avatar picture.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #36

    Stevie65

    Thanx Zborg!

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #37

    ChazR

    There is a Woman's Championship because women are not as smart as men?  I do not think so.  Please correct me if I am wrong.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #38

    ChazR

    Joeydvivre:  Hahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahhahahhhahahhahahhahahha.

    In Soviet Russia, you do not play the game, the game plays you.


Back to Top

Post your reply: