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

Sort:
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.


DiogenesDue
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.

kartikeya_tiwari
Jenium wrote:
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.

Replying after a long time, had forgotten about the thread... anyways..

My criteria is simple, if it's an open tournament then only the top players get prizes. You can reduce the prizes as u go down the ranks. It's how common sense would do it.

Hmm you seem to know a lot about India... well ok then good sir, kindly tell me what privileges men have in India which women don't? tell me the legal rights which men have and women don't. Privilege is "a special right granted to a section by a country".. so yes, can you care to tell me what special legal rights men have in India which women don't?

I am already pretty successful at OW and was once a national record holder for speedcubing... so don't worry about me, I am doing good lol

kartikeya_tiwari
Jenium wrote:
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.

Also, i think our priorities are different. I want equality of opportunity while you want equality of outcome. By "equality of opportunity", I mean I want chess tournaments or any tournament in any field to be inclusive of everyone, no one is banned and everyone gets a fair shot at winning the title.

You on the other hand, want "equality of outcome"... it means that just because women are 50% of the population, you want women to get 50% representation and 50% top spots.

You have absolutely no regard for the skill or interests of the said women, you literally are working under the preimise that the representation percentage MUST be equal to achieve equality, while I am under the impression that everyone should be given a fair shot at the title and let the individual's skills take over after that point. If more women don't want to play chess for 20 hours a day, then they don't have to. Why do you have to punish men who DO work hard?

EnCroissantCheckmate

Nooooo! Why did you revive this thread????

kartikeya_tiwari
KnightAttack1567 wrote:

Nooooo! Why did you revive this thread????

Because no one answered the question tongue.png

kentmalr

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ

kentmalr

YO THIS GUY IS REALY GOOD AT CHEES LOOK