Elo doesn't discrimate. So it's pretty obvious men are better at chess. But it's also obvious not many women play chess compared to men.
do you also think it´s unfair that women get titled easier?
Sort:
I don't understand women's titles. many WGMs are IMs anyway, so why do you need the double?
nMsALpg wrote:
Mermaum wrote:
nMsALpg wrote:
Mermaum wrote:
They don't get an easier title.
It's easy for females to get a chess title than it is for males.
great job cutting the rest of my comment where I explain the titles are different therefore the comparison makes no sense
The title of the topic is complaining that it's easier for women to be titled, which is true, since they have access to titles with lower requirements.
So my disagreement with your disagreement stands (and doesn't change based on the rest of your post).
They have access to different titles, as explained it the comment you conveniently cut from my post. If you're going to quote someone don't cut their sentences in half. It's just dishonest.
They have the ability to be just as good. Judit Polgar is the perfect example of that. I’d argue to not offer women’s titles anymore. Let them keep the ones they have. But don’t continue to offer them. There’s no innate advantage in this game. There are societal factors at play, but there is no biological evidence that women couldn’t be as good as men.
Jun 19, 2022
0
#26
Mermaum wrote:
They have access to different titles
And those different titles are easier, so the OP was right.
Still not making sense. You can't honestly and reasonably claim something is unfair or easier when you're comparing two different things so no the OP isn't right, instead of cutting the complement of what I said try understanding the context of it.
Jun 19, 2022
0
#28
Mermaum wrote:
Still not making sense. You can't honestly and reasonably claim something is unfair or easier when you're comparing two different things so no the OP isn't right, instead of cutting the complement of what I said try understanding the context of it.
Exactly, understand the context. OP says being titled is easier, not that individual titles have different requirements. And the OP was right, it's easier for a female to get a FIDE title because the W titles have lower requirements and aren't given to males.
Sure you can change the topic and say what you said, but since it's off topic I just cut that part of your posts out... everyone knows the requirements for FM (for example) are the same regardless of gender. No need to point it out, and again, the OP wasn't talking about that.
Gilbooooo wrote:
It absolutely makes no sense to me.
Mainly: incentive, to attract more females to the game. Statistically, chess is rather unpopular among women.
Female-specific events and titles garner more interest and participation.
Jun 19, 2022
0
#30
It's nice to see that more people in this thread are showing a shred of understanding instead of regurgitating the usual misogynistic tropes. Here's some reading on the topic:
https://chessdailynews.com/why-is-there-a-need-for-girls-or-womens-tournaments/
https://lichess.org/blog/X9i1gRUAAJzOKpd0/invisible-pieces-women-in-chess
https://en.chessbase.com/post/why-chess-tournaments-can-be-hostile-for-women-and-girls
https://www.amazon.com/Chess-Queens-Champion-Greatest-Players/dp/1399701371
to the first article, there isn't a need for female events, but there is a very real need for better managed events. the third one is just one dude thinking that all men are obsessed because he heard of fairly normal 20 year old. I will read the other two in a second.
nMsALpg wrote:
Mermaum wrote:
Still not making sense. You can't honestly and reasonably claim something is unfair or easier when you're comparing two different things so no the OP isn't right, instead of cutting the complement of what I said try understanding the context of it.
Exactly, understand the context. OP says being titled is easier, not that individual titles have different requirements. And the OP was right, it's easier for a female to get a FIDE title because the W titles have lower requirements and aren't given to males.
Sure you can change the topic and say what you said, but since it's off topic I just cut that part of your posts out... everyone knows the requirements for FM (for example) are the same regardless of gender. No need to point it out, and again, the OP wasn't talking about that.
You'd like my nephew. He thinks it's cool to be literal all the time. I guess semantics are overrated eh
Explaining why it's not unfair and the difference in the titles is not changing the topic.
Regarding the OPs knowledge of fide titles, it's not safe to assume anything about a person who creates the most repeated thread in history, which is why I felt compelled to explain that you can't reasonably compare two different things because they are different. Just because there is the word "title" in it doesn't mean it's the same thing, that should go without saying but this is living proof it doesn't. That explanation is the part that you cut off so that you could interpret it literally and out of context.
edit: before you start correcting me when I say it's the most repeated thread in history I am making use of a figure of speech called hyperbole
Jun 19, 2022
0
#33
Mermaum wrote:
nMsALpg wrote:
Mermaum wrote:
Still not making sense. You can't honestly and reasonably claim something is unfair or easier when you're comparing two different things so no the OP isn't right, instead of cutting the complement of what I said try understanding the context of it.
Exactly, understand the context. OP says being titled is easier, not that individual titles have different requirements. And the OP was right, it's easier for a female to get a FIDE title because the W titles have lower requirements and aren't given to males.
Sure you can change the topic and say what you said, but since it's off topic I just cut that part of your posts out... everyone knows the requirements for FM (for example) are the same regardless of gender. No need to point it out, and again, the OP wasn't talking about that.
You'd like my nephew. He thinks it's cool to be literal all the time. I guess semantics are overrated eh
Explaining why it's not unfair and the difference in the titles is not changing the topic.
Regarding the OPs knowledge of fide titles, it's not safe to assume anything about a person who creates the most repeated thread in history, which is why I felt compelled to explain that you can't reasonably compare two different things because they are different. Just because there is the word "title" in it doesn't mean it's the same thing, that should go without saying but this is living proof it doesn't. That explanation is the part that you cut off so that you could interpret it literally and out of context.
edit: before you start correcting me when I say it's the most repeated thread in history I am making use of a figure of speech called hyperbole
Titles (chess or otherwise) carry a certain amount of prestige. Giving women easier titles is unfair to both men and women. To men, obviously, and unfair to women because it implies they're inferior.
Jun 19, 2022
0
#34
David wrote:
It's nice to see that more people in this thread are showing a shred of understanding instead of regurgitating the usual misogynistic tropes. Here's some reading on the topic:
https://chessdailynews.com/why-is-there-a-need-for-girls-or-womens-tournaments/
https://lichess.org/blog/X9i1gRUAAJzOKpd0/invisible-pieces-women-in-chess
https://en.chessbase.com/post/why-chess-tournaments-can-be-hostile-for-women-and-girls
https://www.amazon.com/Chess-Queens-Champion-Greatest-Players/dp/1399701371
Regarding the 3rd link (tournaments hostile for women) I don't doubt it. I was riding in a car (all of us guys) and one guy made some pretty disgusting comments about one of his female opponents.
Obviously most guys aren't harassing people, but 1 in 100 is too many, especially when many players are underage.
And Shabalov's comment about how he's thinking of sex all the time... that's a bit disturbing to me. Not all guys are like this...
Affirmative action.
it's bizarre to me that people keep quoting Fischer on women like he represents the chess community, but disregard anything he says about chess because he was antisemitic and had extreme paranoia.
Jun 19, 2022
0
#37
chessterchief wrote:
it's bizarre to me that people keep quoting Fischer on women like he represents the chess community, but disregard anything he says about chess because he was antisemitic and had extreme paranoia.
No one has quoted Fischer in this topic...
And even his contemporaries pushed back. I think it was Tal who said "Fischer is Fischer, but a knight is a knight!"
IOW only trolls would quote Fischer to support the idea that women aren't good at chess.
read the LIchess article
Jun 19, 2022
0
#39
chessterchief wrote:
read the LIchess article
Oh. Yeah, that interview is gross. "It was a different time" as they say. Those are the sorts of things people used to say.
For titles like CM, FM, IM and GM, female players have to work as hard as male players. *Snip*
No, I heard if you show a little leg you could get a title easier. Oh wait that was the driving test.
Also female players don't have to work as hard because they're more talented. Or was that they're more genetically predisposed?
I really don't know but all I know is that they have a title and I don't. This cannot stand! It's just not fair