Thanks Heather for your thanks & kind comments . Tolerance and compassion, me, wow. Gotta tell my kids that!
Games like Chess should not have male and female division
Sort:
president_max wrote:
Seriously though, I think the point being made was, s'il vous plait, there are no official gay or African or other restrictive titles unlike women titles.
But there could be, at any moment, and no one cares.
And you already have the Chess Champion of one or another business company orginising internal tournaments, the chess champion of Young and Children, the chess champion of the retirement home of Smalltown Texas, etc. No one cares when people decide to play together because they have in common one thing or another. Just admit being born as female is one of them and as such, need no special treatment. The fact that it's bigger a community than the chess players of the retirement home of Smalltown, Texas, basically doesn't change anything.
The fact that it's official... All has been said. It's commercial. Who cares? If you want to fight FIDE to get rid of women FIDE title, letting another federation being created to organize women tournaments, and not fighting against women tournaments because they are women, then I have no objection. Just think you are loosing your time a bit as it doesn't change anything at the end AND anyways, it's all business and nothing else. But, honestly, it could be argued, even if I don't believe in this fight, and if I thing many more important things could be accomplish by the FIDE than stopping official chess women titles, I admit some want to defend some principles. . I don't care really. But as a matter of fact, women wants to play together, as they attend these tournaments, so the FIDE to me seems quite the right authority to help them doing so. I consider the harm or damage it causes as purely imaginary. So if I was asked, I would say "just keep the way it is" but if it were to change with some new other women federation to organise tournaments and give women titles they want, instead of FIDE, even if I see no point in such a move, it's all right with me, I really don't give a *. But I doubt FIDE would drop this business. They earn money for giving a service to a community. First chess players... Then women chess players. It seems to me one has to be disturbed to really make a fuss out of it as it's all very natural.
Jun 22, 2018
0
#124
president_max wrote:
Thanks Heather for your thanks & kind comments . Tolerance and compassion, me, wow. Gotta tell my kids that!
Laugh all you like. I still think you're a good guy.
Jun 22, 2018
0
#125
Heather_Stephens wrote:
president_max wrote:
Thanks Heather for your thanks & kind comments . Tolerance and compassion, me, wow. Gotta tell my kids that!
Laugh all you like. I still think you're a good guy.
You're too kind, Heather. I'm in shock but my kids sitting by me are the ones really having a laugh. I'll never hear the end of this 
Jun 22, 2018
0
#126
s'il vous plait, some 'natural' expectations are actually conditioned behavior. Obviously enough people care to bring this up repeatedly, trolls aside. Caring enough to think it through based on facts and relevantly processed stats is another matter altogether.
Having a woman's title in chess isn't about ability in chess. It's about visibility. Like as not, the chess community is ridiculously dominated by the presence of men. So women who may be capable of beating top level competition may not get the funding or invites that men of similar talent may get. Creating a woman's title elevates the visibility of great women chess players.
Jun 22, 2018
0
#128
Because the strongest current women’s player in the world, isn’t in the top 50, so there’s at least 50 men who are better than Hou Yifan, that’s why there are separate tournaments, because there aren’t enough women at the level men have achieved (due to various reasons which is another discussion all together) which means that to encourage women, you need a separate women’s cycle.
Jun 22, 2018
0
#129
Generally speaking, men and women think differently. This has been scientifically proven. Also, generally speaking, men are better at chess than women. Of course, there will be women that excel and are great, but on average, men will be better because of the differences in the ways our minds work. If men and women competed in only one division, you would have a disproportionate amount of males at the top of the rankings, and the average female ranking would be lower than the average male ranking. Keep in mind, this doesn’t mean men are better in life, or smarter overall. Men and women are equal, but we need to recognize there are differences and those differences are revealed in many ways, but they also complement each other.
President : "some 'natural' expectations are actually conditioned behavior."
Hope your assertion is not of the same general kind that the one I fight? Think about it, because when men decide to play one way, it's their decision of course, free will and all that. While when women do what they want, they are manipulated. So you need to add more manipulation to save them. Just stop with that dirty hideous shit please. Always justifying tendency to manipulate other (that is only the worse bestial basic domination instinct) by the fact that they were manipulated before so need another layer to correct... This is DISGUSTING. Women are acting with the same degree of freewill or manipulation as men, just let them find out by themselves it they were manipulated and if yes if they want to change it. If they want your help, they'll let you know. You know, that never ending (always with well set condescending arguments) tendency to consider women inferior needing guidance FROM MEN while men in the other hand would be free and strong enough to tell them girls how to behave, that really pisses me off A LOT. This way of thinking is just the worse peace of shit humanity ever gave birth to, and there are loads of pieces of shit in competition believe me, but really, this one, I don't buy. Never, ever. Each time I smell this putrid ideology, I feel nauseous, disgusted and I really start wondering if these guys are just really stupid like dogs unable to look at their beam of their own bestial auto-manipulations before seeking the mote of being manipulated in women's eyes or really evil and doing this abjection KNOWINGLY. But I see few to no alternative to excuse them.
Jun 22, 2018
0
#131
A tougher skin, a calmer mind and better research might help. Or maybe not. You made too many assumptions on my intentions and what I espouse. But then again, those are symptoms of social justice warriors who have little idea of anything.
Well, there must be a reason, just look at the rating difference between the top men and women.
I was asking president then explaining why I hope you were distant from such assumptions. Seems you answered you are. No reason not to believe you President. But if some were to come here with such ideology that women are inferior beings needing men guidance to know how they should behave, now they know what I think about their ideas. I don't pretend knowing intentions of people. I have no such power like mind reading etc. Some explanations were still necessary as most racist or fascist people know what they are, but most people developing the hideous ideology about women being of inferior freewill needing guidance about their behaviour, usually are NOT AWARE at all of their ignominy. They even consider themselves as women protectors or such. Know it's not a pleasure to be suspected of being an a*****e but you may forgive me easily as you know they are there and I know you very few after all. Suspecting is not assuming. Far from that, I assure you.
Maybe in a few decades, chess will have just a single tournament for both men and women. Just wait. I'm confident enough to put money on this.
Interesting you mentioned tennis. Check out "battle of the sexes". Although chess and tennis, IMHO, aren't the same in this regard; tennis is still very physical despite its technical aspects.
mgx9600 wrote:
Maybe in a few decades, chess will have just a single tournament for both men and women.
You don't need to wait for decades, it's already like this, with all major tournaments opened for both men and women. Plus (because they are allowed as any other community), women can play together, in women-only tournaments, but it changes nothing about the very fact that major tournament are perfectly mixes. It's just natural that anyone can play in special tournaments with people of his community if he likes to. Again some people came here, created the illusion of a separation with misuse of words and concepts, but there is no such thing like a separation between men and women in chess. Both play together when they like or with their alike when they like. All the big tournaments are open to women and women do attend if it's pleasurable for them. If it's not pleasurable, then none should push them to do it against their will or create some delusional "good morality" on how they should behave out of their magician hats. Nothing allows anyone to tell women how they should behave in regard of the very fact they are women. Women have the same rights and duty as men and are equal by law and value by all means, and the vile habit of many people men and women attempting to add more moral duties to women just because they are women is just disgusting. Still very common but that just makes it even more disgusting.
Reminder : there is only one ELO rating too, and it is mixes. Please stop repeating pure delusional idea that there are separation as there are no. We all know that women titles are just toys (as the mixes titles like GM etc are all accessible to women too) to get a little more women player titled as they are naturally very few otherwise. It's cute, it has no separation purpose, it's just encouragement as the chess community tend to love chess and then naturally tries to make it as attractive as possible for everyone including young, children, women, and whatever communities where they think there could be more people enjoying chess, see all programs to develop chess in Saint Louis poor suburbs etc. We don't make children tournaments to separate them, but just to make it easier for them the improve their skills in tournaments that fit their level best and have some opportunities to win some events as mixes adult tournament are often very hard. No differentiation. These are no separation, but additional packages meant to make it more attractive for as much people as possible. We all like it if chess has more and more people enjoying it.
Jun 23, 2018
0
#136
If having a women's division gets more of them playing, I'm all for it.
Studies have made it clear that men's and women's brains tend to work a little differently and that women use more of their brains to study problems than men do. This may mean that men are better at focusing problems mathematically or geometrically and women are better at seeing the overall picture.
It may NOT mean those things, either. We don't know. Consequently, since the top women tend not to do as well as well as men, having a women's division is a good idea no matter the reason for the differences.
Jun 23, 2018
0
#137
MickinMD wrote:
since the top women tend not to do as well as well as men, having a women's division is a good idea no matter the reason for the differences.
That doesn't make any sense.
There are plenty of males who aren't top players, and they don't need exclusive tournaments. If a female is 2200 there are TONS of 2000-2400 players she can meet at regular tournaments.
Also, acquiring rare members is trivially easy as long as you start with a large enough sample. To say the best women aren't as good as the best men is meaningless unless the same number participate to begin with.
Jun 23, 2018
0
#138
Preggo_Basashi wrote:
MickinMD wrote:
since the top women tend not to do as well as well as men, having a women's division is a good idea no matter the reason for the differences.
That doesn't make any sense.
There are plenty of males who aren't top players, and they don't need exclusive tournaments. If a female is 2200 there are TONS of 2000-2400 players she can meet at regular tournaments.
Also, acquiring rare members is trivially easy as long as you start with a large enough sample. To say the best women aren't as good as the best men is meaningless unless the same number participate to begin with.
I dont think anyone is talking about exclusive tournaments (as far as gender goes), but rather exclusive divisions within tournaments. Not just gender, but age, rating, etc. You are right, there are plenty of men who are not top players. But there are plenty of women who are not top players either.
Saying the best women are not as good as the best men has lots of meaning, because it's true. The sample size is the whole world, including all men chess players and all women chess players. I think everyone agrees most of the top spots are held by men. If you want the same number to participate so you can compare that way, probably wont happen. I doubt I will ever play in a tournament ever again, for me it defeats the whole purpose of chess.
Jun 23, 2018
0
#139
ilovesmetuna wrote:
Preggo_Basashi wrote:
MickinMD wrote:
since the top women tend not to do as well as well as men, having a women's division is a good idea no matter the reason for the differences.
That doesn't make any sense.
There are plenty of males who aren't top players, and they don't need exclusive tournaments. If a female is 2200 there are TONS of 2000-2400 players she can meet at regular tournaments.
Also, acquiring rare members is trivially easy as long as you start with a large enough sample. To say the best women aren't as good as the best men is meaningless unless the same number participate to begin with.
thinking is apparently not your strong point. hopefully getting preggo comes more naturally to you.
Dude, what are you bored or something? Hurling insults at others won't achieve anything.
Jun 23, 2018
0
#140
ilovesmetuna wrote:
Preggo_Basashi wrote:
MickinMD wrote:
since the top women tend not to do as well as well as men, having a women's division is a good idea no matter the reason for the differences.
That doesn't make any sense.
There are plenty of males who aren't top players, and they don't need exclusive tournaments. If a female is 2200 there are TONS of 2000-2400 players she can meet at regular tournaments.
Also, acquiring rare members is trivially easy as long as you start with a large enough sample. To say the best women aren't as good as the best men is meaningless unless the same number participate to begin with.
thinking is apparently not your strong point. hopefully getting preggo comes more naturally to you.
I'll repeat it for you: what he said made no sense.
"Having a woman's division is a good idea because there are no 2700-2800 women"
This makes no sense because 99.9999 (not sure now many 9s I need heh) of chess players are not 2700-2800. In fact it's the opposite... those are the players who need their own division (and they basically have it via invitational super tournaments).
Hello President max
Thank you for your message of tolerance and compassion.