I think the WCM title should not be given out anymore

LOL yes because your chess rating has everything to do with how smart your opinions are

I understand that on paper you should be able to earn a title - I just don’t think you’re going to put the required effort in to get that title because you’re not going to earn representation at an Olympiad where it seems easier - not with the attitude you have towards the smaller federations, you’d have to get good enough to represent England, which came 10th with a team of all GMs - or get a 2200 rating in OTB FIDE events, which you’re not even really that interested in. You’ve said nothing about whether you’re willing to take up my wager and so no one can take any of your hot takes seriously.

If you want to argue that the Candidate Master titles are lame and shouldn’t be awarded, I have no problem with that. It’s when people start arguing that the women’s versions of those titles aren’t required that they show their ignorance and privilege.

As to whether someone “deserves” a title, I think the amount of time & effort they’ve put in IS relevant. It may not matter as to whether they actually get a title - that’s determined purely on the rules - but we’ve been talking about subjective feelings about it

Respectfully disagree.

I'd say the ones most "deserving" of a chess title are the ones who actually compete OTB and earn their title that way.

Having a superior online blitz/bullet rating doesn't mean much, in the grand scheme of things. It's not throwing your hat in the ring - it's just putzing around online ...

If they don't put in the work it doesn't matter if someone is more talented then the person that actually earned the title

Never said that blitz rating on chesscom meant anything with regard to titles. that's just not the same game as classical chess

The point is that how much investment you put into chess shouldnt matter... participations awards are stupid. Play 5000 otb games but if you arent good you don't deserve a title. Master title means you are a master at chess. otherwise you can have a "Player" title.

I think I'm sticking to online chess...tbf they prob never learned how to take care of themselves since school doesn't teach you that and just never figured it out

Now imagine those blokes hitting up any women who might turn up and then tell me that they’re not disadvantaged by the game.

Also pretty clear about who’s never getting a FIDE title lol

I feel attacked

because actually being good at chess is a privilege. chess is a meritocracy, not an equity seeking government agency.

WCM is a mcdonald's certificate yes, but if we respect the premise which separated male and female titles, then i see no reason why WCM should not exist. if its that much easier to be a top 1% player in the female category over the open category (around top 1% is what CM is supposed to be), well thats just facts.

its more about how chess was generally considered a man sport and now that its more widely introduced to women they have to play catch up in rating

I have proof!

I was an OTB player. Also if you check my games you can clearly see nothing is wrong with them. If there was I'm sure Fair Play would be on it. I am also sure they've checked my account because of the increase, and found nothing wrong. I am genuine. If I wasn't how have I beaten a 3000+ IM in 30 sec hyper? So what does rating matter online, it's just a number.

I am, of course, always suspicious of 2000+ people who "only joined the site in April"

Not exactly. There's a story behind it. 5 months ago I just messed around on the account. Didn't play seriously (like I was just playing 3 moves in class to say I was playing 'educational games' but back then I was like 1500 OTB. My ECF rating of 2100 is probably overrated, as I'm about 1950 strength in other sections (classical 1950 maybe like 1850 rapid) but back then I was like 1400. started taking online seriously again and got to 1700 blitz, hoping to be 1900 by July

Everyone sucks at bullet even I could beat a GM in bullet

Could you beat Hikaru in bullet?

No but I probably could beat Daniel narodiskey I almost beat a 2600 twice pretty easily

Given enough games, anyone can beat anyone... but Daniel Naroditsky would be an awfully tough matchup for any 2100 bullet.

It could take a few hundred games before you beat him.

(Don’t disturb their delusions of grandeur - they’ll have to leave school and grow up eventually anyway, we should probably let them live their childhood fantasies for a little while longer)