FREE - In Google Play
FREE - in Win Phone Store
The word "titles" looks sexist.
I don't know, maybe I take these titles too personally; female titles and tournaments were obviously created for practical reasons only. I mean, it's one thing to allow female-only tournaments and another to flat-out say "Women should have a right that men don't," which I interpreted. But of course, no one thinks that men in general should have less rights than women; it's done for a different reason, not intended to hurt men, even though it sometimes can.
But it just goes too far -- men have to work harder at chess to get the same money and attention as women. That, in my opinion, is a bigger problem than there being less female players.
More or less what I'm saying too. The cure is worse than the disease.
The problem is that ELO is strongly dependent on the community of players that compete with each other. In such a sense, if there are women-only tournaments, that will inevitably affect their participants' rating, and it will differ from the rating they would have had if they were playing only in "regular" (no gender or otherwise restricted) tournaments. That's why both ratings are incomparable, therefore title rating requirements shouldn't be the same. (In the same way, country and international ratings of the same player don't coincide, neither country ratings in different countries are comparable.) Which of those ratings would be higher is a question that's not so easy to answer.
That's why I believe increasing rating requirements for titles while having both "gender open" and "women only" tournaments will not be appropriate, as it wouldn't be appropriate to mix up country and international ratings, and such a measure is not connected with the primary problems of women-only and not women-only titles' separation. Either should women-only tournaments and women-only titles continue to exist (I don't see anything wrong with that, as far as it is up to the participants to choose in which tournamtents to play), or both should be removed.
Female only titles are not discriminatory against men.
The gender difference matters because men don't mind if they chip a fingernail while slamming down a piece.
I have no problem with women's titles or women's events. I see it as mainly a stepping stone to get the ladies more involved. If this ever really happens and females become commonplace at chess tournaments, such titles will gradually lose their meaning.
I think this thread has no end. Luckily most of us get just as much fun out of chess whether there are women's titles or not.
I do, but when I'm not playing chess, I realize the disadvantage I have. It's just something I've accepted to deal with.
<sarcasm>Come on guys, female titles obviously exist becuase females are inferior, so they need the extra boost to feel like they are on the same level as men. It's affirmative action all over again but with women.</sarcasm>
I usually keep my mouth shut but I truly find female titles to be unfair since someone working so hard can finally after 10 or 20 or somewhere in between finally go pass 2000 and not be considered a pro by FIDE or most if not all federations but if your a girl you can start calling yourself a master once you reach 2000 just simply unfair recognition.
lol, this guy should still be around...
Anyway aren't titles just a way of increasing visibility and the value of tournaments? I mean, I'm not saying this is how it should be, but within the current paradigm women's titles are probably going to be justified on the grounds of economic pragmatism rather than all this thundering ballyhoo you suckers frequently come up with.
Flaunting in general is increasing your visibility too, though, which is frowned upon; so I don't think it's effective to use that as a justification -- titles certainly give one something to flaunt about, too. Others want to increase visibility "au natural": Just encourage female friends to play, and be supportive of them, without letting them get extra advantages.
Indeed, economic pragmatism is most likely the reason for these titles. However, who is to say that economic pragmatism is always justified? If it allows people who worked equally as much as those in another group to get more recognition and money, is it worth it, or does it superfluously start to value gender in addition to work ethic? That is a matter of opinion.
There's no need to call people who disagree with you suckers. I respect your opinion, and you should respect theirs.
Just don't have a problem with it at all. There are senior titles, junior titles, amateur titles, etc., etc., ad naseum. I'm for whatever will get anyone to play.
However there isn't a Dog Grandmaster title, you should have a problem with that. Rest assured though, if there was somebody here would be whining about an unfair advantage.
Hey, that reminds me of a joke off an old Chessbase Magazine video told by some Russian GM. (It was a guy, so it was a for REAL GM, not someone with one of those pesky handicapped titles.) Anyway, short version (although the accent really added to it) is a guy and his dog are playing chess on a beach which attracts a crowd of onlookers. Finally someone says, "Hey Mister, that is a smart dog you have there." The guy looks up and replies, "He's not that smart, I've won four games and he's only won one."
Let's face the truth. There are more men who play chess seriously than women who play chess seriously. The possible motive behind titles was to make women feel special, but the effect was a feeling that chess was being sexist.
I will not deny that playing a woman is different; most men play with women differently then they would have played with men. I am not sure this is the same with females, but it may be true. In normal chess tournaments, there is mostly men, so to create an environment like this for females, there are tournaments for only women.
I just don't love the logic that any time we see a disadvantage, we make a title for it. How about "sleepless grandmaster?" You only have to be 2400 FIDE! Is it really realistic to make titles like this simply because it's a disadvantage? We can never be perfect; we should accept certain disadvantages because they are inevitable.
I think it undermines the value of achievement to make things easier for someone when they are having a difficult time. There are people who have not had such a benefit and instead had to get up and try again at their art. I think women should be forced into that mentality just as much as men are, with their fewer chances of making a living off chess relative to their ability; at least in a game like chess, I think the above is how it should be.
But again, on this issue, you are weighing the above concern I have raised about hard work, against the fact that there may or may not be some disadvantage for a certain group (although you can say this for many groups and it's an inevitable part of life). I just happen to value the former a little bit higher, and that ideal is jeopardized by the segregation we have. As I said, I want more women to play, but then again, I want them to do what they want to do, and I think one can (and should) encourage a woman with full enthusiasm without contradicting the belief that the genders should be treated equally. That is the crux of my disagreement with those in favor of segregation; I agree that they should be welcomed and encouraged!