I saw the movie last year (seems this one came out in German earlier than English) and liked it a lot. It was unrealistic as to how fast the protagonist progressed - in the beginning she doesn't even know how the pieces move and in the end, after just some games with her mentor, she goes to her first tournament and beats them all ... however what seems real in this movie is her growing fascination and passion for chess, something we all can quite well relate to :)
Why do we have woman categories?
Sort:
waffllemaster wrote:
I understand the titles were introduced from an organizational standpoint to help increase participation among an underrepresented group (females). That said, there's no way around the fact that having women's only titles implies women aren't as capable of chess players due to their gender.
There were already incentives in terms of titles for women to play, i.e. all the regular titles were available to all women from the beginning. Why isn't a regular FM, IM, or GM title incentive enough for women? They only answer would be because it's too hard for them to get a regular title. This is why female only titles are insulting.
And yes, I think females who play in women's only tournaments and who take and display their female only titles are insulting other women. As for Pogonina and others like her, I still respect their professional level chess ability, but as I said IMO there's no way around the fact that it's insulting to women.
I agree. What if they had titles for blacks only? BGM, Black Grandmaster. Pretty good, but still lower rated than whites. That would be an insult to blacks even if there were blacks who displayed it proudly, like some women do.
Apr 30, 2011
0
#84
Reb wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
waffllemaster wrote:But of course US only titles and tournaments would be insulting.
National Master, and a whole plethora of USCF titles. If you play chess in Amerika, prepare to be insulted.
Why do you use a " k " in the spelling of America ? I also want to point out that the USA is not the only country that has the NM title. I know this first hand since I am also an NM in Portugal , which requires a 2200 FIDE rating which is a bit harder to get than 2200 USCF. I feel certain other countries also have NM as well. So, maybe I am now an NMx2 or NMNM ?
Reb, that other countries also have the NM title strenthens my point. The USCF now awards titles to class players, but I don't like them. Although I've been an A-class player almost two years, my highest title is B.
The k is the German spelling of America. It comes out when I'm typing inattentively sometimes.
I think it is a prejudice to have a whole different ratings list, and title for women at chess. I can understand having a childrens title, most children are not yet mentally mature, and chess is a game of the mind so for kids to have a seperate category for them is totally understandable, and I think it is a good idea.
Excellence is the best deterent to any prejudice. And some women, like Judit Polgar have proven a woman can be as strong of a chess player as a man.
Interesting ! So, even class players are considered as "titled" now in the USCF ? Do they send all of them a certificate or something ? If you live in a country that has weak chess players and win their National Championship FIDE will give you their IM title..... for one result no matter what the opposition was !? Look at the top players for smaller countries like Puerto Rico for example, Angola also..... There are many US states in which the competition for the state championship is far stiffer than for the national championship of some countries......
Apr 30, 2011
0
#87
Reb wrote:
Interesting ! So, even class players are considered as "titled" now in the USCF ? Do they send all of them a certificate or something ? If you live in a country that has weak chess players and win their National Championship FIDE will give you their IM title..... for one result no matter what the opposition was !? Look at the top players for smaller countries like Puerto Rico for example, Angola also..... There are many US states in which the competition for the state championship is far stiffer than for the national championship of some countries......
No certificates.
The IM title for winning a national championship is a useful comparison to women's titles. It is easy to see why folks might immediately object, but makes sense from another perspective. It might be easier to defend a title earned via three norms in gender restricted competition than a title earned via a single national championship event.
Post #104 makes the best point of all.
chessguitar wrote:
If chess is a battle of the mind--why have separate titles for woman? I understand why we have men's basketball and woman's basketball because they simply can't compete with each other on a physical level. In chess, all those physical differences wouldn't seem to matter.
I appologize in advance if this has been posted before.
Exactly; they shouldn't be there. It's sexist because FIDE doesn't mind rewarding women for lesser accomplishments solely because they're women. Instead they should reward every woman who achieves what, currently the man must achieve, you know, so that it's actually equal, like I thought all humans were supposed to be. Yeah if we exclusively gave all 2600s and above all the attention, then a lot of women wouldn't get that attention, but if they didn't make it to such a high level, then why should they deserve it?
And what's so special about Judit Polgar? The truly neutral way to think of her is that, though she is great, she is just another strong, human, grandmaster, no? But obviously the fact that she is a woman makes it so much better? Isn't that a judgment based on sex?
Yeah.
echecs06 wrote:
so they get a fare chance
That's rather patronizing, don't you think?
Apr 30, 2011
0
#92
AnthonyRBrown wrote:
Man Plays E2-E4 Woman makes the Dinner!
I have seen far fewer women write notation incorrectly: perhaps they get more social pressure to learn how to read?
e2-e4.
Equality usually means equal opportunity, not treating everybody the same. Of course you'd treat people differently based on alot of different things like how well you knew them, their abilities and temperament, etc etc.
Apr 30, 2011
0
#94
couriermike wrote:
Equality usually means equal opportunity, not treating everybody the same. Of course you'd treat people differently based on alot of different things like how well you knew them, their abilities and temperament, etc etc.
Whether they can spell ect. ...
Whether they know how to use ellipses .....................
Whether they know that alot is two words.
It's short for et cetera.
Three dots: no more, no less. If there are four, one should be a period.
A lot.
fyy0r wrote:
It looks like electricpawn's relentless onslaught of 20th century classics has finally killed the thread. Congratulations electricpawn!
I was laughing the whole time by the way.
Thanks fyyOr, but apparently it will take more than Beatle music to kill this thread.
Elubas wrote:
chessguitar wrote:
If chess is a battle of the mind--why have separate titles for woman? I understand why we have men's basketball and woman's basketball because they simply can't compete with each other on a physical level. In chess, all those physical differences wouldn't seem to matter.
I appologize in advance if this has been posted before.
Exactly; they shouldn't be there. It's sexist because FIDE doesn't mind rewarding women for lesser accomplishments solely because they're women. Instead they should reward every woman who achieves what, currently the man must achieve, you know, so that it's actually equal, like I thought all humans were supposed to be. Yeah if we exclusively gave all 2600s and above all the attention, then a lot of women wouldn't get that attention, but if they didn't make it to such a high level, then why should they deserve it?
And what's so special about Judit Polgar? The truly neutral way to think of her is that, though she is great, she is just another strong, human, grandmaster, no? But obviously the fact that she is a woman makes it so much better? Isn't that a judgment based on sex?
Well sure, you could rationalize any human accomplishment into something not so grand. Climbing mount Everest is just another mountain.
But the fact is before Judit no woman had made it that far before... ever. The reasons can be underrepresentation, social, psychological, physical, or something else. The reason doesn't matter, but she was clearly overcoming something. Notice no women since has made it as far as her despite growing participation. You could even say she was before her time, so it is worth remembering.
If there were an equal number of female players as well as similar situations socially, psychologically, historically, etc. between the sexes, then yes, remembering Judit would be sexist.
I'm not at all in favor of discrimination or unequal rights for any group of people, but there are differences between groups of people that make certain accomplishments more difficult. Saying all humans are equal is silly.
electricpawn wrote:
fyy0r wrote:
It looks like electricpawn's relentless onslaught of 20th century classics has finally killed the thread. Congratulations electricpawn!
I was laughing the whole time by the way.
Thanks fyyOr, but apparently it will take more than Beatle music to kill this thread.
If the discussion makes you that uncomfortable, you have alternative options. Such as not coming to the topic in the first place.
couriermike wrote:
Equality usually means equal opportunity, not treating everybody the same. Of course you'd treat people differently based on alot of different things like how well you knew them, their abilities and temperament, etc etc.
To your second statement: yeah, but in this case it's judged purely on sex and nothing else.
How is giving more opportunities for females equal opportunity?
And yeah, when all we know is someone's sex, I think they should be judged/treated, more or less exactly the same with perhaps some exceptions. I mean one may show more fear if they see a big man threatening them than a woman, but for something like chess, there's no real reason why Judit Polgar is any more special than anyone of her rating: she is a human who got to a very high level.
Oh, one may say there was discrimination or something that she had to overcome. Well first of all, that needs a lot of support; it really, really can't just be assumed, and secondly even if there was, almost everyone who made it to a certain level had to overcome obstacles, man or woman, because it's pretty hard to imagine most of them not having any at all for such a tough task of making it to the top in chess, isn't it? Maybe as a man, a guy had got a wife and had to support her or something and thus focus more on work than chess, etc: one could list dozens, probably hundreds of small or big obstacles they had to go through, as few are lucky enough not to come across them. That's simply an inherent part of life!
waffllemaster wrote:
Elubas wrote:
chessguitar wrote:
If chess is a battle of the mind--why have separate titles for woman? I understand why we have men's basketball and woman's basketball because they simply can't compete with each other on a physical level. In chess, all those physical differences wouldn't seem to matter.
I appologize in advance if this has been posted before.
Exactly; they shouldn't be there. It's sexist because FIDE doesn't mind rewarding women for lesser accomplishments solely because they're women. Instead they should reward every woman who achieves what, currently the man must achieve, you know, so that it's actually equal, like I thought all humans were supposed to be. Yeah if we exclusively gave all 2600s and above all the attention, then a lot of women wouldn't get that attention, but if they didn't make it to such a high level, then why should they deserve it?
And what's so special about Judit Polgar? The truly neutral way to think of her is that, though she is great, she is just another strong, human, grandmaster, no? But obviously the fact that she is a woman makes it so much better? Isn't that a judgment based on sex?
Well sure, you could rationalize any human accomplishment into something not so grand. Climbing mount Everest is just another mountain.
No, that's actually pretty nice; I feel no need to discriminate against mountains here 
But the fact is before Judit no woman had made it that far before... ever. The reasons can be underrepresentation, social, psychological, physical, or something else. The reason doesn't matter, but she was clearly overcoming something. Notice no women since has made it as far as her despite growing participation. You could even say she was before her time, so it is worth remembering.
The problem with this whole paragraph is you assume that what you list are indeed obstacles, and you assume they are very severe. There is absolutely no way you can be so sure. Is it too much to think that someone's willpower to do what they love can overcome such shallow things like this supposed discrimination? Everyone has to overcome something anyway, man or woman!
I'm not at all in favor of discrimination or unequal rights for any group of people, but there are differences between groups of people that make certain accomplishments more difficult.
Ok, but again, how do you know what she had to go through was any worse than what certain men specifically had to go through? How do you know you're not overestimating what she had to go through to the point of being nearly sure? Is it really that bad? Well, maybe, but we don't know, and we also don't know if it's any worse than what a man had to go through. For example, what if we take this prejudice the other way and say that a lot of pressure was put on some GM because he was a male prodigy. Couldn't he complain that he had to deal with the pressure that if he didn't make GM his parents would be mad at him or something? Would that make him exceptionally more worth-remembering?
My point is, the amount of obstacles one can list is endless, and the significance of them can be difficult to confidently, and, most certainly, incontrovertibly, determine, like in this case.
I continue to wonder though if female only titles are a good or bad idea. Women like Kosteniuk and Pogonina argue there are many reasons women haven't made as much progress in chess as men have, and I don't disagree with those reasons. It's clear women as a group haven't done as well in chess.
Still, I'm learning toward the titles are a bad idea because titles are based purely off of performance. If women haven't done as well for social reasons then surely there are better options than setting up lower performance requirements which so closely mirror the sort of discrimination women have had to overcome historically. I have to admit, in a perfect world these titles would be great. They offer more incentives to a group that is both underrepresented and apparently not as strong. But socially it seems to be a step in the wrong direction especially when there are other ways of encouraging and promoting chess for women.
Addendum
The idea that women do poorly because their bodies are physically weaker (a la Kosteniuk's argument) or because they have to make a "dangerous" choice between a professional career and a family (again Kosteniuk) is incorrect. Female professional athletes overcome the same types of decisions and preform nearly as well as men. In a competition that is measured in hundredths of a second or centimeters I completely understand having separate medals for men and women. But chess is not so finely judged. If it were then it would make sense to have entirely separate competitions such as we see in the Olympics.
Queen to Play, Joueuse in French, is a new movie that opens tomorrow about a housekeeper who becomes obsessed with chess and learns to play as an adult. I'm guessing it vastly underestimates the difficulty of becoming a good chess player.
a review
the trailer