Being critical of girls or woman’s only tournaments points at a persons bias/chauvinism. There exists no sensible reason to exclude such chess tournaments.
Is there a reason why female chess is separated from mainstream chess?
Sort:
The league is “bad” when compared to the men’s league. The last place NBA team is “bad” when compared to the best team. The best WNBA ladies would out play “the average boys team” of age 16. It is a Team sport - something most boys require more time to learn.
Nov 23, 2020
0
#45
It's very simple, it's because if women were grouped with men, there would be much less opportunity. There are many women players that are successful in women's tournaments, but those same women would never qualify for mixed events. It's just due to the vast majority of top players in the world being male. An analogy would be having completely open tennis events. How many women would qualify? Maybe Serena Williams at her peak, but even then she would not be all that competitive. It would actually have the effect of less women being able to play professionally.
This is not me being sexist ... I actually think if just as many women were interested in chess and started leaning the game at a young age, you would probably see many more women rated much higher and the possibility of completely open events would exist. The lack of women at the highest level is not because they are less capable, but just because there are way fewer women playing the game. To address that something needs to be done to try to get more females interested in the game.
Now Sonia criticize my support for girls/woman’s chess tournaments. A failure in reading comprehension.
Nov 23, 2020
0
#47
the best WNBA womens team would lose to a club level boys team. It's not disputed. Serena Williams, considered one of the best female tennis players of all time, has gotten destroyed 6-0, 6-1 by a 200th ranked male tennis player in a match. She would genuinely struggle to beat say a 17 year old "Club" level male tennis player. It's the same with the WNBA.
Just watch that video I linked, the guy shows how low the level of play is. You're just interested in coming across as a white knight and aren't interested in the truth.
Nov 23, 2020
0
#48
BadBishopJones3 wrote:
Now Sonia criticize my support for girls/woman’s chess tournaments. A failure in reading comprehension.
Your "support" is the type of support that would destroy womens chess. Pairing women with men will not work, nor would merging their tournaments and titles. There's a shortage of women chess players as is, but then pairing them up against guys who are much higher level than them for the same title is just a recipe for disaster.
50Kittens wrote:
Idk either. I find it very elitist and offensive.
Look at the world rankings and see where women rank among all chess players.
Woman's world champion would get no recognition at all. It would be great if we could have a world where certain groups get special recognition, simply because they really cannot compete.
I meant did not get special recognition.
And the 20O th rated men’s tennis player would destroy any of the boys - more so than he demolished Venus.
That match was a classic. Serena and Venus were boasting at the time. How they could compete favorably with the average mens player on tour. The player took up their challenge in a side match.
And how did he prepare?
By playing a round of golf in the morning and drinking ale in the pub before their afternoon match !!!
“Woman's world champion would get no recognition at all. It would be great if we could have a world where certain groups get special recognition, simply because they really cannot compete.“
And this is reason to eliminate girls/woman’s only tournaments?
NikkiLikeChikki wrote:
@fizzy. You clearly missed the point of my argument.
No I didn't I understand what you're saying but the use of those countries is just factually wrong and it kind of defeats the purpose of the analogy
It is difficult to compare overall men to women since so few women actually play chess. Women are likely to be over represented by the women with actual talent with chess.
There are things other than general IQ at play, there is specifically spacial intelligence where men consistently out score women.
bbmaxwell wrote:
NilsIngemar wrote:
It is difficult to compare overall men to women since so few women actually play chess. Women are likely to be over represented by the women with actual talent with chess.
There are things other than general IQ at play, there is specifically spacial intelligence where men consistently out score women.
But not 200 rating points worth.
And the idea that chess is calculation (visualization) is a notion held by only non-players or people who otherwise know nothing about chess.
It's easier to explain by raw population. If 1% of players are female, then it makes sense that you're much less likely to pull a 1 in a million rarity (someone capable of a 2700+ rating) from the general population.
You are assuming that playing chess is a random event. It is not. People generally like things they are good at doing and quit doing things they are not good at doing.
There are physical differences in the a woman's brain and a man's brain just as there are physical differences throughout the body.
People who believe the only differences between men and women are due to sex organs and muscular strength and speed are simply ignorant.
Nov 23, 2020
0
#56
@fizzy again, you missed the point so I will explain. Women’s tournaments are less important than open tournaments, generally. National tournaments are less important than international tournaments, generally.
Being a women’s champion is not a important as being an open champion. Being a national champion is less important than being an international champion. Both kinds of tournaments exist to give intermediate goals to their participants. Nobody outside of New Zealand cares about who is the Kiwi champion, but it’s an aspirational goal for those participating. It’s the same for women’s tournaments.
Being a women’s champion is not a important as being an open champion. Being a national champion is less important than being an international champion. Both kinds of tournaments exist to give intermediate goals to their participants. Nobody outside of New Zealand cares about who is the Kiwi champion, but it’s an aspirational goal for those participating. It’s the same for women’s tournaments.
Soniasthetics wrote:
The basic fact is that women and mens chess is just too far apart. Mens chess is far more competitive. It doesn't mean that women can't get close to mens level, but men seem to have a bit more affinity to chess, due to higher efficiency at things like pattern recognition. It makes no sense to combine men and womens chess. It's kind of like the NBA. Womens NBA at top play, is about as good as teenage club level boys play. It wouldn't make sense to compare. Mens NBA rakes in many times more cash, and the quality of play is like night and day.
Now chess is an exception in terms of women vs men in sports, because women aren't mentally lacking severely compared to men, like they are severely physically lacking compared to men in physical sports, so there is a lot of room for improvement, provided the pool of women players grow, which it slowly is currently.
For the time being, men are still vastly dominant in chess, and the only female chess player I can even think of that has ever given the top male chess players a run for their money is Judit Polgar. None of the other female chess players have ever come close.
Finally someone had the courage to admit it, thanks.
Soniasthetics wrote:
LoganFeldkamp wrote:
Soniasthetics wrote:
The basic fact is that women and mens chess is just too far apart. Mens chess is far more competitive. It doesn't mean that women can't get close to mens level, but men seem to have a bit more affinity to chess, due to higher efficiency at things like pattern recognition. It makes no sense to combine men and womens chess. It's kind of like the NBA. Womens NBA at top play, is about as good as teenage club level boys play. It wouldn't make sense to compare. Mens NBA rakes in many times more cash, and the quality of play is like night and day.
Now chess is an exception in terms of women vs men in sports, because women aren't mentally lacking severely compared to men, like they are severely physically lacking compared to men in physical sports, so there is a lot of room for improvement, provided the pool of women players grow, which it slowly is currently.
For the time being, men are still vastly dominant in chess, and the only female chess player I can even think of that has ever given the top male chess players a run for their money is Judit Polgar. None of the other female chess players have ever come close.
Very well said, it is solely due to the participation and time spent on the game. Separate tournaments and women-only titles give more incentive to play. Men are not smarter than women by any means.
Right, the scientific data so far has pointed towards similarity in IQ averages and intellectual capabilities. The only difference is there is more men that fill the below IQ average and above average IQ levels, but besides that men and women aren't that different when it comes to brain capacity. Men might be more prone to other things and women others intellectually, but women aren't severely lacking in anything.
I don't know why people keep pushing to merge womens titles and tourneys with mens. all it will do is harm womens chess. Its really bizarre.
Everyone likes to quote that study but what no one mentions is that the study was done on teenage boys and girls and teenage girls reach maturity in intelligence faster than boys. Therefore it was a flawed test since it measured the peak of female intelligence vs boys who hadn't reached their peek yet. A similar study was done for adults which no one talks about, guys were better across the board in that test
BadBishopJones3 wrote:
A Professional WNBA Team would demolish any teenaged boys club in a game. No contest. I’m assuming a regular boys club, ages 14-16 from the local YMCA is meant and not 19 year olds entering college. Put the top 5 high school ballers on the same team - maybe they’d be competitive but likely not win vs the WNBA stars. These ladies are good, very good nowadays and over the years play as a well oiled machine. Their experience and talent is superior to “teenaged boys clubs”
Woman shoot hoops as well as the men. Ever watch 3 point contests ? They stay on par with the men. The differences lie in physical size and strength. The finesse is close to being equal.
I am pretty sure that a teenage boys club can easily beat a WNBA team, it won't even be close. Remember how the female world champion football team lost to teenage boys?
PsYcHo_ChEsS wrote:
It's very simple, it's because if women were grouped with men, there would be much less opportunity. There are many women players that are successful in women's tournaments, but those same women would never qualify for mixed events. It's just due to the vast majority of top players in the world being male. An analogy would be having completely open tennis events. How many women would qualify? Maybe Serena Williams at her peak, but even then she would not be all that competitive. It would actually have the effect of less women being able to play professionally.
This is not me being sexist ... I actually think if just as many women were interested in chess and started leaning the game at a young age, you would probably see many more women rated much higher and the possibility of completely open events would exist. The lack of women at the highest level is not because they are less capable, but just because there are way fewer women playing the game. To address that something needs to be done to try to get more females interested in the game.
Serena williams at her peak was not even top 500 rank among men, as explained by the rank 200 man who easily beat her in a 1v1 while being half drunk
A Professional WNBA would demolish any teenaged boys club in a game. No contest. I’m assuming a regular boys club, ages 14-16 from the local YMCA is meant and not 19 year olds entering college. Put the top 5 high school ballers on the same team - maybe they’d be competitive but likely not win vs the WNBA stars. These ladies are good, very good nowadays and over the years play as a well oiled machine. Their experience and talent is superior to “teenaged boys clubs”
U don't know the first thing when it comes to the WNBA. Everyone knows how bad the league is. All you have to do is type in WNBA on youtube and you will find tons of videos on how low level the competition is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJRzMRJye4s&ab_channel=EasySwishSniper
but sure, continue to say that the women in the WNBA are actually good basketball players.