"Joking" would require saying something amusing.
What you're doing is called "abusive trolling".
What are the requirements to make WNM
Sort:
Mar 7, 2024
0
#23
magipi wrote:
"Joking" would require saying something amusing.
What you're doing is called "abusive trolling".
It was a joke plain and simple. Are you always this much fun or just at parties?
Mar 7, 2024
0
#24
The requirements for NM and WNM depend on the country because those titles are national titles
I also dont think the title of WNM exists in most places? WFM is the closest thing to an NM title as far as I know...
Mar 7, 2024
0
#25
Saltyirishmen wrote:
wait it only takes a eilo of 2,000? Doesn't that seem abit low for best in the world?
2000 FIDE, significantly harder than 2000 chess.com
Mar 7, 2024
0
#26
SlipsterSam wrote:
David wrote:
And that sort of attitude is exactly why women’s titles are still required.
It's just the truth
That a woman's title can be earnt with just one tenth the effort and skill of the non-gender specific equivalent? Really?
thechessnoob12345 wrote:
Saltyirishmen wrote:
wait it only takes a eilo of 2,000? Doesn't that seem abit low for best in the world?
2000 FIDE, significantly harder than 2000 chess.com
Is there really a WNM title in Australia for 2000 FIDE rating?
Mar 7, 2024
0
#28
magipi wrote:
thechessnoob12345 wrote:
Saltyirishmen wrote:
wait it only takes a eilo of 2,000? Doesn't that seem abit low for best in the world?
2000 FIDE, significantly harder than 2000 chess.com
Is there really a WNM title in Australia for 2000 FIDE rating?
Not that I can find mentioned with Google
Mar 7, 2024
0
#29
magipi wrote:
thechessnoob12345 wrote:
Saltyirishmen wrote:
wait it only takes a eilo of 2,000? Doesn't that seem abit low for best in the world?
2000 FIDE, significantly harder than 2000 chess.com
Is there really a WNM title in Australia for 2000 FIDE rating?
I was talking about WCM
Mar 7, 2024
0
#30
SlipsterSam wrote:
David wrote:
That a woman's title can be earnt with just one tenth the effort and skill of the non-gender specific equivalent? Really?
If you can earn a title with 2000 elo, instead of 2200, yes that is much much easier. What are you getting confused about here?
It still takes an enormous amount of skill and dedication, and certainly more than "one tenth" the effort of the non-gender specific equivalent. By dismissing it you are dismissing the value of women as a whole.
Mar 7, 2024
0
#31
Women's titles are very much a matter of women's rights - chess has historically discriminated against women which is why their participation rates are so low, so they exist to try and encourage more women to play the game. By demeaning their worth, you're essentially saying that you're happy with the status quo and don't want to see more women play chess.
Mar 7, 2024
0
#32
theswooze wrote:
David wrote:
Women's titles are very much a matter of women's rights - chess has historically discriminated against women which is why their participation rates are so low, so they exist to try and encourage more women to play the game. By demeaning their worth, you're essentially saying that you're happy with the status quo and don't want to see more women play chess.
is that right? how, per se, has chess 'historically discriminated against women?' be specific.
https://chessdailynews.com/why-is-there-a-need-for-girls-or-womens-tournaments/
https://lichess.org/blog/X9i1gRUAAJzOKpd0/invisible-pieces-women-in-chess
https://en.chessbase.com/post/why-chess-tournaments-can-be-hostile-for-women-and-girls
https://www.amazon.com/Chess-Queens-Champion-Greatest-Players/dp/1399701371
I haven't updated the list for the people who have spoken out since the most recent article.
Mar 7, 2024
0
#33
You can use Google too, you know: https://theconversation.com/whats-behind-the-gender-imbalance-in-top-level-chess-150637
There's a stat in that one:
In 2001, only 6% of internationally rated players were female. By 2020 this had risen to more than 15%.
4 years ago, only 15% of internationally rated players were female. Female results in chess are a result of the lack of participation. It's about the numbers.
Mar 7, 2024
0
#34
theswooze wrote:
David wrote:
You can use Google too, you know: https://theconversation.com/whats-behind-the-gender-imbalance-in-top-level-chess-150637
There's a stat in that one:
In 2001, only 6% of internationally rated players were female. By 2020 this had risen to more than 15%.
4 years ago, only 15% of internationally rated players were female. Female results in chess are a result of the lack of participation. It's about the numbers.
i agree. women self select out of chess. it doesnt seem to interest them as much as it does men. but to assume some sort of nefarious actions against women is really just plain stupid.
They "self select" because the game at that level is in many ways hostile to them. Maybe not all people are deliberately malicious as some of the sexual predators some of those female players mention, but certainly a lot are completely indifferent to it. Or actively trying to undermine efforts to make the game more welcoming to them with things like, I don't know, women's titles.
Mar 7, 2024
0
#35
So your argument is that women just don't like chess so we shouldn't have women's titles or women's only events, they should just stay in the kitchen and have babies?
In 2020, 15% of internationally rated players were female. And you're the one demanding that I make a case that chess has not been historically hostile towards women's participation in it?
Mar 7, 2024
0
#36
theswooze wrote:
but then, i asked you to be specific and all you could do is repost some articles that were mostly off point.
Most of those articles - and 1 book - are by women about the challenges they and their peers have personally experienced. The fact that you find them off point indicates how out of touch with what their reality has been.
Mar 7, 2024
0
#37
theswooze wrote:
David wrote:
So your argument is that women just don't like chess so we shouldn't have women's titles or women's only events, they should just stay in the kitchen and have babies?
In 2020, 15% of internationally rated players were female. And you're the one demanding that I make a case that chess has not been historically hostile towards women's participation in it?
are you retarded? when did i ever say that?
OK, let's start simple then: you seem to have zero interest in making chess more welcoming to women - why is that?
Mar 7, 2024
0
#38
theswooze wrote:
David wrote:
So your argument is that women just don't like chess so we shouldn't have women's titles or women's only events, they should just stay in the kitchen and have babies?
In 2020, 15% of internationally rated players were female. And you're the one demanding that I make a case that chess has not been historically hostile towards women's participation in it?
dude: YOU are the one who said chess has been historically discriminating toward women. im asking you to defend this statement and you cant.
And then I shared some articles from women about why this stuff is necessary, which you declared to be "off point". Did you even read them? Are you just looking for things you can argue against and ignoring the big picture where these women are trying to tell you about what it is they've faced?
Mar 7, 2024
0
#39
theswooze wrote:
David wrote:
theswooze wrote:
David wrote:
So your argument is that women just don't like chess so we shouldn't have women's titles or women's only events, they should just stay in the kitchen and have babies?
In 2020, 15% of internationally rated players were female. And you're the one demanding that I make a case that chess has not been historically hostile towards women's participation in it?
are you retarded? when did i ever say that?
OK, let's start simple then: you seem to have zero interest in making chess more welcoming to women - why is that?
yet another mistake on your part. i have to ill will toward women in chess. i welcome them like i welcome anyone else.
And the present result of that is 15% of them being internationally rated. If your welcome is anything like your posting in this thread, it's no wonder that they decide they don't need this toxicity and find something else to do.
Mar 7, 2024
0
#40
*sigh* Women have been historically discriminated against in everything - chess is no exception. When the constitutions of the USA and Australia were drafted, only men were allowed to vote. Women still hold only 23.3% of the world's board seats according to the latest Deloitte's report https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/topics/leadership/women-in-the-boardroom.html Doing anything "like a girl" is still largely an insult. So maybe instead of asking me to defend my assertion that chess has historically discriminated against women, why don't you defend how chess has managed to NOT discriminate historically against women when much of the rest of society was?
Once you're good at chess, and happen to be a woman - the next step is to attend the all-ladies slumber party and participate in the weekly sleepover club stories for a minimum of a year. Once you complete that process, your are now officially a WNM
Ah ok, ok, so as a biological male im thinking any harm in suddenly identifying as a woman, so I could attend these sleep over slumber parties you speak of? For research ofcourse and to get good at chess...🤔👀👀
"Identfying" is not enough.
Even if you change your gender via a lengthy and irreversible process, you'll find a couple of flies in your soup:
1. FIDE has banned trans women from women tournaments
2. the WNM title that you're after does not exist.
But never mind all this, just go ahead.
Agreed, to be clear I'm only joking here, sad I gotta point it out, but people can easily take things seriously...