Reb has already declined the possibility of a sex change just to get the GM letters. Something about lipstick on a pig.
Why do we have woman categories?
Sort:
well i think that the idea to have separate women's categories came about to increase promotion of chess to women. I'm not sure the last time you went to a chess tournament, but girls receive a little bit too much attention in a 99.9% male dominated room. So, i think this leads to women players feeling uncomfortable and discouraged from continued attendance of tournaments. So - women's categories and separate women's events can make them feel more comfortable -> leading to an increased number of female players.
However, I don't really understand why there are separate titles. The rating system is the exact same to my knowledge, however I've seen titled women players (Woman Fide Master - WFM) rated as low as 2100. I've never understood why there are separate woman titles, attainable at lower ratings, while they are normally competing with men in a completely level playing field.
The most sexist policy FIDE has is their policy of allowing females at age 50 to play as "seniors" while making males wait till age 60 ! Considering that women live longer ( on average ) it should be just the opposite !
Reb wrote:
woodshover wrote:
electricpawn wrote:
waffllemaster wrote:
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.
I also have the option of expressing my opinion. A WGM could easily defeat anyone in this thread - except maybe Reb - and yet some of us are carrying on about whether they deserve a GM title. I always find this amusing when this topic resurfaces. Maybe the title's given for promotional purposes. Maybe the title will go away like the notion that a woman can't be a CEO. Until it does, show some respect for superior ability.
If she can't beat Reb, she shouldn't call herself any kind of GM. It doesn't matter whether I or anybody else in this thread sucks at chess or not.
WGM only requires 2300 FIDE and I think some norms as well. 2300 FIDE is only FM if you are male and against FMs I score about 50 %. I wonder if a WGM has a sex change will she ( ? ) be demoted to FM ?
Rene Richards? I didn't know the exact numbers, but I figured you were close.
electricpawn wrote:
This has absolutely nothing to do with my chess skill; the fact that tons of women could beat me... what, would my opinion be more valid if I was higher rated or something? I'm saying I shouldn't have to do more work than a woman to get a title and recognition just because I'm a guy, and I think that's pretty reasonable.
You and I can't get that level of recognition, and I think that's exactly the point. We run the risk of appearing to be a mob of resentful chess dwarves trying to drag down a female chess giant. If FIDE or whoever wants to honor It's highest rated female members, what difference does it make to you and me unless we feel resentful that we don't possess that level of ability. If you're worried about sexism that affects either or both sexes, there are more productive outlets for your concern than taking away the titles of a very few talented chess players.
She's not a chess great if her real rating is only 2300.
Reb wrote:
The most sexist policy FIDE has is their policy of allowing females at age 50 to play as "seniors" while making males wait till age 60 ! Considering that women live longer ( on average ) it should be just the opposite !
If that's true, FIDE must have a VERY low opinion of women.
May 1, 2011
0
#148
LordNazgul wrote:
woodshover wrote:
Reb wrote:
The most sexist policy FIDE has is their policy of allowing females at age 50 to play as "seniors" while making males wait till age 60 ! Considering that women live longer ( on average ) it should be just the opposite !
If that's true, FIDE must have a VERY low opinion of women.
I think that's probably consistent with retirement policies in most countries.
I think not in the US (though I'm not completely sure): I think it's 65 for both men and women (it might be unconstitutional for there to be a sex-based different)
NickYoung5 wrote:
LordNazgul wrote:
woodshover wrote:
Reb wrote:
The most sexist policy FIDE has is their policy of allowing females at age 50 to play as "seniors" while making males wait till age 60 ! Considering that women live longer ( on average ) it should be just the opposite !
If that's true, FIDE must have a VERY low opinion of women.
I think that's probably consistent with retirement policies in most countries.
I think not in the US (though I'm not completely sure): I think it's 65 for both men and women (it might be unconstitutional for there to be a sex-based different)
It's 67 for me, and there's nothing constitutional about that.
May 1, 2011
0
#150
electricpawn wrote:
NickYoung5 wrote:
LordNazgul wrote:
woodshover wrote:
Reb wrote:
The most sexist policy FIDE has is their policy of allowing females at age 50 to play as "seniors" while making males wait till age 60 ! Considering that women live longer ( on average ) it should be just the opposite !
If that's true, FIDE must have a VERY low opinion of women.
I think that's probably consistent with retirement policies in most countries.
I think not in the US (though I'm not completely sure): I think it's 65 for both men and women (it might be unconstitutional for there to be a sex-based different)
It's 67 for me, and there's nothing constitutional about that.
But it would be the same regardless of your gender, no?
electricpawn wrote:
If you're worried about sexism that affects either or both sexes, there are more productive outlets for your concern than taking away the titles of a very few talented chess players.
I don't see what's wrong about stating this injustice.
In fact, I take interest and concern for this because it is pretty much "right in your face" sexism, yet it is completely ignored. On the other hand, people can go out of their way to interpret things and claim so many things as sexist against females. It's a little sick.
Do women have better global pattern recognition than men, whereas men have better calculation and depth perception for evolutionary reasons or is that a myth?
Perhaps chess requires access to areas of the brain that are more advanced in one sex over the other, but then we'd need equal number of men and women playing before any true population comparisons can be made with any confidence.
NickYoung5 wrote:
electricpawn wrote:
NickYoung5 wrote:
LordNazgul wrote:
woodshover wrote:
Reb wrote:
The most sexist policy FIDE has is their policy of allowing females at age 50 to play as "seniors" while making males wait till age 60 ! Considering that women live longer ( on average ) it should be just the opposite !
If that's true, FIDE must have a VERY low opinion of women.
I think that's probably consistent with retirement policies in most countries.
I think not in the US (though I'm not completely sure): I think it's 65 for both men and women (it might be unconstitutional for there to be a sex-based different)
It's 67 for me, and there's nothing constitutional about that.
But it would be the same regardless of your gender, no?
That's correct. I'm part of an age group that went from 65 to 67 for full benefits, and I'm just whining.
trysts wrote:
Why do we have senior events??????? What's this junior stuff????????? Why are there national titles???????? What the hell is up with these categories?????????????
aren't you dead or something?
Un-dead, please.
May 1, 2011
0
#156
That's correct. I'm part of an age group that went from 65 to 67 for full benefits, and I'm just whining.
I would whine too! (And probably will when a similar thing happens to me)
NickYoung5 wrote:
That's correct. I'm part of an age group that went from 65 to 67 for full benefits, and I'm just whining.
I would whine too! (And probably will when a similar thing happens to me)
When 65 was chosen as the retirement age, life expectancy in the U.S. was right around 65.
Really people who are going to now have to wait to retire at 67 should be happy they can actually expect, on average, to live 10 or more years into their retirement as compared to their great-grandfathers.
I guess I should state that was life expectancy from birth. if a person reached adulthood, even in the '30s, they could probably expect to live into their 70.
selfmate wrote:
NickYoung5 wrote:
That's correct. I'm part of an age group that went from 65 to 67 for full benefits, and I'm just whining.
I would whine too! (And probably will when a similar thing happens to me)
When 65 was chosen as the retirement age, life expectancy in the U.S. was right around 65.
Really people who are going to now have to wait to retire at 67 should be happy they can actually expect, on average, to live 10 or more years into their retirement as compared to their great-grandfathers.
I guess I should state that was life expectancy from birth. if a person reached adulthood, even in the '30s, they could probably expect to live into their 70.
I think our expectations of retirement are different than they were during the Great Depression. Maybe they're unrealistic. There are simple funding options for Social Security would make the system much more robust that aren't being implemented. Why? Political considerations of course.
Reb wrote:
The most sexist policy FIDE has is their policy of allowing females at age 50 to play as "seniors" while making males wait till age 60 ! Considering that women live longer ( on average ) it should be just the opposite !
Is this really true? Unbelievable 
This has absolutely nothing to do with my chess skill; the fact that tons of women could beat me... what, would my opinion be more valid if I was higher rated or something? I'm saying I shouldn't have to do more work than a woman to get a title and recognition just because I'm a guy, and I think that's pretty reasonable.
You and I can't get that level of recognition, and I think that's exactly the point. We run the risk of appearing to be a mob of resentful chess dwarves trying to drag down a female chess giant. If FIDE or whoever wants to honor It's highest rated female members, what difference does it make to you and me unless we feel resentful that we don't possess that level of ability. If you're worried about sexism that affects either or both sexes, there are more productive outlets for your concern than taking away the titles of a very few talented chess players.