Just started watching world cup this year, didn't realize there was a separate women's world cup - Chess Forums - Page 7

DiogenesDue

Jul 22, 2021

0

#121

pawnstar1957 wrote:

nice to see you at least know how to google.

Nice to see you aren't going to bother trying and back up your assertion, "professor". Since my strawman call seems to fit the bill, people may be wondering how you were planning to make a distinction. Here's your opportunity to show your chops and give everyone a Strawman 101 lesson...

DiogenesDue

Jul 22, 2021

0

#122

kartikeya_tiwari wrote:

whether something is warranted or not is a matter of subjective opinion. There are many, many female titled players who want the titles to be done away with.

It's a 100% subjective opinion, no one, not even kasparov, has any expertise in it.

Thanks for pointing out your underlying assumptions. Not even Kasparov...lol.

https://susanpolgarfoundation.org/invitational/

The above is not an opinion, it's an example of expertise (16 years of it) in creating and running events for women. Your OP is an opinion...one that isn't going anywhere. Do away with women's events *and* U1800 amateur events *and* the Junior WC? Are you trying to stick a fork in chess?

It's becoming clear you have some personal stake in seeing male IMs win more prizes. Perhaps a certain male IM? Trainer, maybe? Relative? You've mentioned this "problem" you've created unilaterally so many times now...

pauldrapier

Jul 22, 2021

0

#123

> She was just another GM...She hasn't achieved anything in her life worth mentioning

Well, then.

x-0460907528

Jul 22, 2021

0

#124

btickler wrote:

pawnstar1957 wrote:

nice to see you at least know how to google.

Nice to see you aren't going to bother trying and back up your assertion, "professor". Since my strawman call seems to fit the bill, people may be wondering how you were planning to make a distinction. Here's your opportunity to show your chops and give everyone a Strawman 101 lesson...

look, if you dont believe ask anyone else in the world with any expertise whatsoever in the subject matter. if you dont want to do that feel free to continue being a fool. now please...dont go away mad...just go away.

DiogenesDue

Jul 22, 2021

0

#125

pawnstar1957 wrote:

look, if you dont believe ask anyone else in the world with any expertise whatsoever in the subject matter. if you dont want to do that feel free to continue being a fool. now please...dont go away mad...just go away.

Words with no backup.

I'll be gone when this thread has ceased to provide educational opportunities for male chess players who don't understand their privilege (or when the OP blocks me, if he wants to give up).

x-0460907528

Jul 22, 2021

0

#126

look, btickler. i explained my original post in mind numbing detail for you on comment #79. i have no clue how you could possibly continue to misunderstand it. i suspect you are simply too pig headed to admit you are wrong. (the only alternative to this is that you are too thick headed to understand a simple argument.) either way, i dont care anymore. i'm not here to give you lessons in logic. if you dont believe me, ask some other qualified person--or not. you can always just continue to go through life wrapped in your own ignorance. at least i taught you a couple new buzz words that you are now deploying--even if you use them incorrectly. you can continue to reply to my comments if you like, but i wont be reading them. have a nice life, btickler! best of luck to you. you are going to need it

DiogenesDue

Jul 22, 2021

0

#127

pawnstar1957 wrote:

look, btickler. i explained my original post in mind numbing detail for you on comment #79. i have no clue how you could possibly continue to misunderstand it. i suspect you are simply too pig headed to admit you are wrong. (the only alternative to this is that you are too thick headed to understand a simple argument.) either way, i dont care anymore. i'm not here to give you lessons in logic. if you dont believe me, ask some other qualified person--or not. you can always just continue to go through life wrapped in your own ignorance. at least i taught you a couple new buzz words that you are now deploying--even if you use them incorrectly. you can continue to reply to my comments if you like, but i wont be reading them. have a nice life, btickler! best of luck to you. you are going to need it

Translation: "I can't back up my assertion about strawmen, fallacies in general, or being a professor of logic, so I am out of here."

As my reply to your referenced post already made clear (when I told you not to pull a Ponz), I already knew about all this stuff long before you came along. So no, you didn't teach me any buzzwords.

DreamscapeHorizons

Jul 22, 2021

0

#128

Anonymous_Dragon

Jul 22, 2021

0

#129

😂

AunTheKnight

Jul 22, 2021

0

#130

Btickler, I believe the lowest rated GM is 2100.

kartikeya_tiwari

Jul 22, 2021

0

#131

Jenium wrote:

kartikeya_tiwari wrote:

Jenium wrote:

kartikeya_tiwari wrote:

Jenium wrote:

Well, I agree that the division is somewhat arbitrary. But so is the division between an open tournament and an under 1800 tournament. (There is no physical difference between a GM and a 1700 player, except that the 1700 is worse at chess.)

Why do you assume that the motivation in women's event is negative. It gives female players an additional source of income and a chance to compete for a title and can encourage other female players... I don't really see the harm.

I said new players. I am all for separate divisions for new players(<1200-1300 rated) as they are clearly new so a fun new event can be nice for them. I don't support making separate tournaments for 1800+ players because they clearly are not new and should work hard if they want to achieve any prizes.

Also, i am pretty sure there isn't a separate world cup or world championships for <1800 group. The title of this topic is the "world cup", if there was a (<1800) section of the world cup i would be speaking against that too. You should aspire to win the world championships, there should be just ONE person who gets it, not anyone else.

The motivation is negative for men. A 2400 female player takes home a bunch of cash while a 2400 rated male player is left with nothing as his field is stronger. There is no difference between the two, both are semi pro players but one of them is getting punished for being born with the wrong parts, how can you not see the issue?

As i said, why do grown, adult, pro women need to have their own little special place compared to grown, adult, pro men? the division is 100% baseless and senseless. Not only does it punish the men for being men(same rating women take home a bunch more cash) but it also makes absolutely zero sense

Well, the division between "new" and "experienced" is arbitrary itself. I know 1100 players who have been playing for decades, and "new" players who are rated 1500 after a few weeks. So where to draw the line? Also why should "new" players have a "fun event", compete against each other and win prizes, but not intermediate or advanced players? Isn't it unfair to the 1400 player who cannot win a prize because he/she studied their endgames, but the 1300 player can because he/she didn't?

Also, the "World Junior WC" is not for 5 years old, but for players under 20 - a lot of them are GMs and already professionals. And yes, actually there is a U1800 world championship... cf. World Amateur Chess Championship. So if you want to be consequent, all of those events should be abolished...

But I guess we don't have to agree on this one.

To complete my point, i am more in favor of a progression based division system. Players under 1400 have a separate event but the prize is very low, 1400-1800 get more prizes, 1800-2200 get double the amount and so on. It makes a lot of sense to me. If u have to divide the category divide it by skills, not by what a human was born with

Fair enough. But in your system the 1900 player would hardly ever win anything, while the 1750 player would gain prizes. How is that fairer than giving women who managed to establish themselves in a male dominated sport a shot at a title?

Well the prize for coming last in the 1900-2100 bracket would be higher than the prize for coming first in the 1700-1900 bracket... it is actually done in many esports like this, it's completely fair. The difference in prize is pretty insane between brackets.

Again, i don't like grown adult people being given privileges just for having different body parts, how is that fair? do male nurses get tons of privileges over female nurses just because there are more female nurses? it's a very stupid argument you are bringing here.

kartikeya_tiwari

Jul 22, 2021

0

#132

pauldrapier wrote:

> She was just another GM...She hasn't achieved anything in her life worth mentioning

Well, then.

Kindly lay down her big achievements?

kartikeya_tiwari

Jul 22, 2021

0

#133

BestSell wrote:

kartikeya_tiwari wrote:

... (Judit Polgar) has never beaten any man in a classical chess game.

... She was just another GM, definitely not a great player by any stretch of the imagination. She hasn't achieved anything in her life worth mentioning....

The willful ignorance of this post makes my head hurt.

Somehow, this thread evolved from "Why is there a separate Women's World Cup?" to "Judit Polgar hasn't achieved anything in her life worth mentioning".

I won't be surprised if Hou Yifan starts getting bashed, too.

I'm unfollowing, as the sexist undertones here are giving me a bad aftertaste.

Sexist? it has nothing to do with polgar being a woman. I would say the same thing if it was a man. If a person does not win any major tournaments, does not perform in candidates, does not finish near the top in the world cups or has any such noteworthy performances then how is that person a "great" player?

kartikeya_tiwari

Jul 22, 2021

0

#134

Jenium wrote:

kartikeya_tiwari wrote:

Jenium wrote:

kartikeya_tiwari wrote:

Jenium wrote:

Well, I agree that the division is somewhat arbitrary. But so is the division between an open tournament and an under 1800 tournament. (There is no physical difference between a GM and a 1700 player, except that the 1700 is worse at chess.)

Why do you assume that the motivation in women's event is negative. It gives female players an additional source of income and a chance to compete for a title and can encourage other female players... I don't really see the harm.

1. By "new players", i mean rank casuals who spend like 5 minutes a day on chess and are in no way experienced at all or take chess seriously.

5. I like how you completely skipped my description of how women section is unfair for men who are not the top but are IM level

To #1: And how do you determine if a player is 1000 because he/she spends 5 minutes a day at chess or if he/she is just bad at it? And anyway, why to reward the one who just spends 5 minutes on it?

#5: I've heard the very same argument from a player rated 2250, who complained about the 2150 players competing for the U2200 prize while he was too weak for his section. At least he had a point. As said above, there is absolutely no social difference between a 2250 and a 2150 player. In contrast, if you really think that the only difference between men and women are their organs, and that there are no differences how women are raised or treated by society think again... Or how do you explain that there is just one female player in the top 100?

Ah yes, the illogical "society" argument which people use to justify punishing men. If i have to use the same argument then you will be pretty shocked to see how much any sport(not just chess) is discouraged in certain countries for men as well. Do those countries need to be given special provileges because of it? You are being completely naive if you think that taking up chess is so simple and easy for a guy living in india, it's not but the indian men don't complain do they? I am sure it's the same in many countries.

Point is, use logic and reasoning and not stupid "sOCIeTy bAd" argument, it's way too overused and gets boring after a while. It has no way to be measured and cannot be quantified. Men also face millions of hardships. Poor people also face tons of hardships so where is the separate division for poor people? it's just completely illogical

brianchesscake

Jul 22, 2021

0

#135

Go to any scholastic tournament and you will see just as many girls as boys playing, because their parents introduced them to chess and pushed them into competing. The truth is that girls start to think chess is "nerdy" only as they enter the pre-teen years, when they are impressionable to social expectations and culturally constructued gender norms. They also start to be more highly influenced by friends and peers at that age. The majority of girls who play chess when they are young will stop being interested in the game by 13-14. It's also the same reason why females are usually underrepresented in careers like math, computer science, engineering, and medicine.

kartikeya_tiwari

Jul 22, 2021

0

#136

brianchesscake wrote:

Go to any scholastic tournament and you will see just as many girls as boys playing, because their parents introduced them to chess and pushed them into competing. The truth is that girls start to think chess is "nerdy" only as they enter the pre-teen years, when they are impressionable to social expectations and culturally constructued gender norms. They also start to be more highly influenced by friends and peers at that age. The majority of girls who play chess when they are young will stop being interested in the game by 13-14. It's also the same reason why females are usually underrepresented in careers like math, computer science, engineering, and medicine.

That's too much logic and truth, much easier is believing that society treats girls badly so they deserve extra treats

Jenium

Jul 22, 2021

0

#137

kartikeya_tiwari wrote:

You are being completely naive if you think that taking up chess is so simple and easy for a guy living in india, it's not but the indian men don't complain do they? I am sure it's the same in many countries.

Point is, use logic and reasoning and not stupid "sOCIeTy bAd" argument, it's way too overused and gets boring after a while.

Poor you, I am sure you're having a really tough life, being a man. I don't doubt that the argument gets boring for you. That's because you're in a privileged position. If you can't see that, why don't you read a book or just look around? Last time I checked India wasn't exactly a paradise when it comes to gender equality. https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/wefs-gender-gap-index-india-slips-28-places-ranks-140-among-156-countries-101617178122495.html

Jenium

Jul 22, 2021

0

#138

kartikeya_tiwari wrote:

Jenium wrote:

kartikeya_tiwari wrote:

Jenium wrote:

kartikeya_tiwari wrote:

Jenium wrote:

Well, I agree that the division is somewhat arbitrary. But so is the division between an open tournament and an under 1800 tournament. (There is no physical difference between a GM and a 1700 player, except that the 1700 is worse at chess.)

Why do you assume that the motivation in women's event is negative. It gives female players an additional source of income and a chance to compete for a title and can encourage other female players... I don't really see the harm.

I said new players. I am all for separate divisions for new players(<1200-1300 rated) as they are clearly new so a fun new event can be nice for them. I don't support making separate tournaments for 1800+ players because they clearly are not new and should work hard if they want to achieve any prizes.

Also, i am pretty sure there isn't a separate world cup or world championships for <1800 group. The title of this topic is the "world cup", if there was a (<1800) section of the world cup i would be speaking against that too. You should aspire to win the world championships, there should be just ONE person who gets it, not anyone else.

The motivation is negative for men. A 2400 female player takes home a bunch of cash while a 2400 rated male player is left with nothing as his field is stronger. There is no difference between the two, both are semi pro players but one of them is getting punished for being born with the wrong parts, how can you not see the issue?

As i said, why do grown, adult, pro women need to have their own little special place compared to grown, adult, pro men? the division is 100% baseless and senseless. Not only does it punish the men for being men(same rating women take home a bunch more cash) but it also makes absolutely zero sense

Well, the division between "new" and "experienced" is arbitrary itself. I know 1100 players who have been playing for decades, and "new" players who are rated 1500 after a few weeks. So where to draw the line? Also why should "new" players have a "fun event", compete against each other and win prizes, but not intermediate or advanced players? Isn't it unfair to the 1400 player who cannot win a prize because he/she studied their endgames, but the 1300 player can because he/she didn't?

Also, the "World Junior WC" is not for 5 years old, but for players under 20 - a lot of them are GMs and already professionals. And yes, actually there is a U1800 world championship... cf. World Amateur Chess Championship. So if you want to be consequent, all of those events should be abolished...

But I guess we don't have to agree on this one.

To complete my point, i am more in favor of a progression based division system. Players under 1400 have a separate event but the prize is very low, 1400-1800 get more prizes, 1800-2200 get double the amount and so on. It makes a lot of sense to me. If u have to divide the category divide it by skills, not by what a human was born with

Fair enough. But in your system the 1900 player would hardly ever win anything, while the 1750 player would gain prizes. How is that fairer than giving women who managed to establish themselves in a male dominated sport a shot at a title?

Well the prize for coming last in the 1900-2100 bracket would be higher than the prize for coming first in the 1700-1900 bracket... it is actually done in many esports like this, it's completely fair. The difference in prize is pretty insane between brackets.

"The prize for coming last in the 1900-2100 bracket would be higher than the prize for coming first in the 1700-1900 bracket"??? Have you even ever been to a tournament? I don't think you know what you are talking about. In most open tournaments players pay an entry fee and the players ranked 1-5 or so get it. There are often more than 100 players. Where do you intend to take the money to pay a 1905-player for being last in his/her section?

kartikeya_tiwari

Jul 22, 2021

0

#139

Jenium wrote:

kartikeya_tiwari wrote:

Jenium wrote:

kartikeya_tiwari wrote:

Jenium wrote:

kartikeya_tiwari wrote:

Jenium wrote:

Well, I agree that the division is somewhat arbitrary. But so is the division between an open tournament and an under 1800 tournament. (There is no physical difference between a GM and a 1700 player, except that the 1700 is worse at chess.)

Why do you assume that the motivation in women's event is negative. It gives female players an additional source of income and a chance to compete for a title and can encourage other female players... I don't really see the harm.

I said new players. I am all for separate divisions for new players(<1200-1300 rated) as they are clearly new so a fun new event can be nice for them. I don't support making separate tournaments for 1800+ players because they clearly are not new and should work hard if they want to achieve any prizes.

Also, i am pretty sure there isn't a separate world cup or world championships for <1800 group. The title of this topic is the "world cup", if there was a (<1800) section of the world cup i would be speaking against that too. You should aspire to win the world championships, there should be just ONE person who gets it, not anyone else.

The motivation is negative for men. A 2400 female player takes home a bunch of cash while a 2400 rated male player is left with nothing as his field is stronger. There is no difference between the two, both are semi pro players but one of them is getting punished for being born with the wrong parts, how can you not see the issue?

As i said, why do grown, adult, pro women need to have their own little special place compared to grown, adult, pro men? the division is 100% baseless and senseless. Not only does it punish the men for being men(same rating women take home a bunch more cash) but it also makes absolutely zero sense

Well, the division between "new" and "experienced" is arbitrary itself. I know 1100 players who have been playing for decades, and "new" players who are rated 1500 after a few weeks. So where to draw the line? Also why should "new" players have a "fun event", compete against each other and win prizes, but not intermediate or advanced players? Isn't it unfair to the 1400 player who cannot win a prize because he/she studied their endgames, but the 1300 player can because he/she didn't?

Also, the "World Junior WC" is not for 5 years old, but for players under 20 - a lot of them are GMs and already professionals. And yes, actually there is a U1800 world championship... cf. World Amateur Chess Championship. So if you want to be consequent, all of those events should be abolished...

But I guess we don't have to agree on this one.

To complete my point, i am more in favor of a progression based division system. Players under 1400 have a separate event but the prize is very low, 1400-1800 get more prizes, 1800-2200 get double the amount and so on. It makes a lot of sense to me. If u have to divide the category divide it by skills, not by what a human was born with

Fair enough. But in your system the 1900 player would hardly ever win anything, while the 1750 player would gain prizes. How is that fairer than giving women who managed to establish themselves in a male dominated sport a shot at a title?

Well the prize for coming last in the 1900-2100 bracket would be higher than the prize for coming first in the 1700-1900 bracket... it is actually done in many esports like this, it's completely fair. The difference in prize is pretty insane between brackets.

"The prize for coming last in the 1900-2100 bracket would be higher than the prize for coming first in the 1700-1900 bracket"??? Have you even ever been to a tournament? I don't think you know what you are talking about. In most open tournaments players pay an entry fee and the players ranked 1-5 or so get it. There are often more than 100 players. Where do you intend to take the money to pay a 1905-player for being last in his/her section?

If it's an open tournament and only the top 1-5 get the prize then it's fair

kartikeya_tiwari

Jul 22, 2021

0

#140

Jenium wrote:

kartikeya_tiwari wrote:

You are being completely naive if you think that taking up chess is so simple and easy for a guy living in india, it's not but the indian men don't complain do they? I am sure it's the same in many countries.

Point is, use logic and reasoning and not stupid "sOCIeTy bAd" argument, it's way too overused and gets boring after a while.

Poor you, I am sure you're having a really tough life, being a man. I don't doubt that the argument gets boring for you. That's because you're in a privileged position. If you can't see that, why don't you read a book or just look around? Last time I checked India wasn't exactly a paradise when it comes to gender equality. https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/wefs-gender-gap-index-india-slips-28-places-ranks-140-among-156-countries-101617178122495.html

I am not surprised that you completely failed to grasp what I meant by that statement. In india taking up ANY sport is pretty much always discouraged by parents. Sports is not seen as a viable option. If i decided to go pro at chess then pretty sure the society, parents and anyone else won't support my decision. Don't speak about matters you are clueless in.

I am privileged? what do you know about me? Our family had to work hard to make ends meet, we didn't even have basic amenities, let alone money to get chess coaches and go to tournaments. Didn't even have enough to get a computer or internet connection till I was like 18 years old, you know nothing about me and call me privileged lol. I did want to take up a sport as my career( a very popular sport in india) but due to lack of money needed my parents were strictly against it. I had no chance of taking up chess. Pretty sure many women in USA were 100x more privileged than me.

As i said, shut up about things you have no clue about