Forums

Just started watching world cup this year, didn't realize there was a separate women's world cup

kartikeya_tiwari
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
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
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"??? surprise.png 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
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
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

kartikeya_tiwari
ayanvirani17 wrote:

Tbh it doesn't make a lot of sense to me to have separate sections. But if you think about at the higher level most of the times we would have a men's winner with most of the ladies being knocked out by round 3 or 4 because of the competiveness(as you can see it is a very serious tournament and a very tough one indeed since alot of the super gms are out)

Well if most of the ladies are knocked out then they need to get good. Why do we need to make a separate section for them to enable them to win prizes? what about the men who get knocked out? why not make a separate section for them too then?

Point is, a person should be judged based on his skills, we should not try to force certain results like we are doing now. If female leagues continue then no woman would ever aspire to be number one in the true sense, it is extremely harmful to female chess on a whole 

kartikeya_tiwari
btickler wrote:
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...

 

Yes not even kasparov. If susan polgar believes that atleast 30% of players should be females then that does not carry more weight than a person who believes that 50% of players should be females or a person who believes that it should be a free market.

I have already told you, i don't worship the polgar sisters so sending me to their website is not really a logical reply. Creating events for and training women is really not anything more noble than running events for and training men. Susan polgar doesn't even "NEED" to run events for women, women can already participate in tons of open tournaments and their women only tournaments, the foundation is not needed.

The basic premise of your argument is flawed in itself as it tries to force a particular % of women in the chess population. Women have free will, if they don't like playing chess then they don't like playing chess, trying to force chess onto women is not really very helpful.


btickler
kartikeya_tiwari wrote:

Yes not even kasparov. If susan polgar believes that atleast 30% of players should be females then that does not carry more weight than a person who believes that 50% of players should be females or a person who believes that it should be a free market.

I have already told you, i don't worship the polgar sisters so sending me to their website is not really a logical reply. Creating events for and training women is really not anything more noble than running events for and training men. Susan polgar doesn't even "NEED" to run events for women, women can already participate in tons of open tournaments and their women only tournaments, the foundation is not needed.

The basic premise of your argument is flawed in itself as it tries to force a particular % of women in the chess population. Women have free will, if they don't like playing chess then they don't like playing chess, trying to force chess onto women is not really very helpful.

Nobody's forcing anything.  Follow your own logic, maybe?  If women didn't want to play chess then the women's tournaments would be empty below the 2000 level (because the prizes suck), and ergo over time, no women would be there to advance in rating and play in the women's world cup and "steal" your precious IM prize money.

Your free will argument is ridiculous.  Sponsors and organizers also have free will, and have exercised it to create women's events.  Donations to Susan Polgar's foundation are also a function of free will.  Trying to force them to change is not really very helpful.

Check, and mate.

Jenium
kartikeya_tiwari wrote:
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

That's a bit rich coming from you. First you claim that every player in a tournament should get a prize, then you say, it's fair if only the first five get money... Which one is it? You obviously don't have a clue what you are talking about...

Also, your line of argumentation is flawed. We are talking averages. Of course there are some women who earn more money than men. Of course, there are some Black people who have more rights than White people. Does this mean there is no inequality on a large scale? Hell, no! Men in India are in a privileged position compared to women in India. Period. That is not to say that due to your socioeconomic situation or citizenship or whatever you don't have less power than other demographic groups. But why lamenting about another minority because they get a bit of extra support? Why not trying to support the creation of more equality in general instead? I don't get it.

And, just as a side note... I don't think there are many sports where you can be really successful without being able to control your emotions. So maybe not going pro wasn't the worst choice.