Woman world championships and titles - aren't they an insult ?


  • 4 months ago · Quote · #221

    chessfreak

    thegreat_patzer wrote:

    oh boy this is a long winded old post

    if you ask me- (and nobody will)- womens titles and tournaments is about money, the ability for top rated women to be professional, when they rating is too low to actually compete in the strong open tourneys.

    its an economic reality not an insult; and many women have used it to stay at the top of their game.

    Exactly.

  • 4 months ago · Quote · #222

    boltjg

    chessfreak wrote:
    thegreat_patzer wrote:

    oh boy this is a long winded old post

    if you ask me- (and nobody will)- womens titles and tournaments is about money, the ability for top rated women to be professional, when they rating is too low to actually compete in the strong open tourneys.

    its an economic reality not an insult; and many women have used it to stay at the top of their game.

    Exactly.

    i beleive the polagr girls prove that women are as good as men , they simply are not as many women players as there are men therefore less gm s.

  • 4 months ago · Quote · #223

    Elubas

    0110001101101000 wrote:

    Spacial reasoning... but chess strength isn't how well you can visualize and it's often not how well you can reason. It's more about how many patterns you're familiar with.

    Well, all of the above, perhaps. Although I'm really bad at visualizing 3d objects, good thing chess is 2d! I think you can get good at any of it with practice, but it takes a certain kind of person to want to and enjoy practicing at it in the first place. Other types of people will spend time practicing something else.

  • 4 months ago · Quote · #224

    Elubas

    thegreat_patzer wrote:

    its an economic reality not an insult;

    In theory yeah; but in practice it's very hard to shake off that feeling of insult. You're always going to be reminded of the fact that you're getting help from a federation rather than standing on your chess skills alone.

  • 4 months ago · Quote · #225

    Elubas

    boltjg wrote:
    chessfreak wrote:
    thegreat_patzer wrote:

    oh boy this is a long winded old post

    if you ask me- (and nobody will)- womens titles and tournaments is about money, the ability for top rated women to be professional, when they rating is too low to actually compete in the strong open tourneys.

    its an economic reality not an insult; and many women have used it to stay at the top of their game.

    Exactly.

    i beleive the polagr girls prove that women are as good as men,

    And serial killers prove that anyone is capable of killing.

  • 4 months ago · Quote · #226

    0110001101101000

    boltjg wrote:

    i beleive the polagr girls prove that women are as good as men 

    No individual can represent billions.

    They prove it's not impossible, and perhaps that female only titles are silly, but with 100s of male GMs, it will take 100s of female GMs to make a point about genders in general.

  • 4 months ago · Quote · #227

    0110001101101000

    Elubas wrote:
    0110001101101000 wrote:

    Spacial reasoning... but chess strength isn't how well you can visualize and it's often not how well you can reason. It's more about how many patterns you're familiar with.

    Well, all of the above, perhaps. Although I'm really bad at visualizing 3d objects, good thing chess is 2d! I think you can get good at any of it with practice, but it takes a certain kind of person to want to and enjoy practicing at it in the first place. Other types of people will spend time practicing something else.

    Personality is an interesting idea.

    Although not enough to explain 100 to 1 (or more?) ratio I think!

  • 4 months ago · Quote · #228

    Elubas

    Right. Until I knew about it, I wouldn't ever have guessed the ratio of male to female would be anything like this. It's very tempting to compare this to gaming. Poker, darts, magic the gathering, any video game, they are totally male dominated as far as I know. And there are lots of similarities between them. Guys have a much greater tendency to suck themselves into their intricacies.

    I mean there are millions of theories, including the "no life" theory, in which they play these games because they don't have validation otherwise. That's a very dark but also very common theory.

  • 4 months ago · Quote · #229

    0110001101101000

    I've always been amused by the "no life" comment. What does that mean exactly? It seems very subjective. Isn't it simply that they don't enjoy the things you enjoy?

    I can't imagine myself ever labeling someone as having "no life." Sad, unfulfilling, or unbalanced, sure. I suppose unless they're dead. Dead people have no life Laughing

  • 4 months ago · Quote · #230

    thegreat_patzer

    well, mr digital- thats the way SOME people view the addiction of chess playing.  I mean MR chess player has to spend SERIOUS time at chess to get good at it, right?  that does take away from the party...

    I just happen to think that chess playing is a good life.

    regarding that theory, I have smirk a little about what it implies- so if "games" are a waste of time for this hypothetically smarter girl- what is she 'supposed' to do that is so much Better.

    wash dishes, vacuum for the man??  thats sounds  very ... archaic.

    I don't think women think that way any more.   they do recreate.

    I guess I'm not very good at ending this thread. ok. I suppose we can keep talking. BUT . lets try to keep it ORIGINAL.  so much as been said in previous threads/post....

  • 4 months ago · Quote · #231

    Elubas

    "I mean MR chess player has to spend SERIOUS time at chess to get good at it, right?  that does take away from the party..."

    Right, but then, everyone probably spends serious time on some things. It's just that when it's on some particular thing that is not socially acceptable, like chess (ok, excuse the hyperbole there), that's when you get all the flak.

  • 4 months ago · Quote · #232

    thegreat_patzer

    right, and its all where you are at, socially.

    for example- if you're in high school, you're math teacher might think this is a much better way to spend free time than to illegal drink and party....

    on the other hand; with a guy who has a business career- he's peers might think its a terrible waste of time. "Golf" is the better hobby, as its such an accepted way that business guys recreate/smooze/'network'

    ... chess is CHESS nonetheless.  I think it has its good points and if it fits with LIFE generally- it doesn't matter if others think its a good (or poor) use of your free time.

    you will either have your own personal compelling reason to play/study it- or , at some defeat; you will have that Chess.com classic "goodbye cruel world- where you accuse most of your opponents of cheating"

  • 4 months ago · Quote · #233

    0110001101101000

    Exactly.

    And how fulfilling is a life of partying, just as an example. Is that "having a life?"

    As a kid maybe. But that's not much of a life from my perspective. I'd rather be going to chess tournaments and improving myself lol :)

    But lets be more realistic and say the highlight of a person's day (or week or whatever) is going out with friends or family and having a nice meal and socializing. That's great. It's just not going to be the thing I look forward to all day or week.

  • 4 months ago · Quote · #234

    Gil-Gandel

    boltjg wrote:
    chessfreak wrote:
    thegreat_patzer wrote:

    oh boy this is a long winded old post

    if you ask me- (and nobody will)- womens titles and tournaments is about money, the ability for top rated women to be professional, when they rating is too low to actually compete in the strong open tourneys.

    its an economic reality not an insult; and many women have used it to stay at the top of their game.

    Exactly.

    i beleive the polagr girls prove that women are as good as men , they simply are not as many women players as there are men therefore less gm s.

    That's not much of a proof. You can only count one of the Polgar sisters - Judit - the others, while strong women players, aren't in Judit's league. The existence of one woman player who has been in the top ten for part of her playing career suggests that it is possible that there could be others if they had Judit's gifts and application; but that's not proof until these other women actually prove that they exist.

    It's strange how no-one thinks it odd that there should be women-only competitions for martial arts, athletics, football, tennis, and a hundred other sports, and yet believe apparently on ideological grounds that women and men must be equal in ability when it comes to chess.

  • 4 months ago · Quote · #235

    MorrisW

    [COMMENT DELETED]
  • 4 months ago · Quote · #236

    0110001101101000

    Gil-Gandel wrote:

    It's strange how no-one thinks it odd that there should be women-only competitions for martial arts, athletics, football, tennis, and a hundred other sports, and yet believe apparently on ideological grounds that women and men must be equal in ability when it comes to chess.

    But FIDE half-asses it.

    If women are inferior, fine, then they shoudln't be eligible for men's titles or men's tournaments.

    But there's no such thing as men's titles and men's tournaments Undecided

  • 4 months ago · Quote · #237

    SocialPanda

    UseWithCare wrote:

    Judging from the examples of Polgar and Yifan, women are just as good at chess. I somehow have the impression that top women players are less likely to draw just upon reaching the minimum number of moves to do it legally. I may have missed something but players like N. Pogonina never go away without a fight. And they're beautiful as well. :)

     
     
     
     
    And there are more.

    (but that´s normal for professionals... even Nakamura with a fame of being enterprising has games like that too)




  • 4 months ago · Quote · #238

    power_2_the_people

    No its not an insult. First time i see that thread and didn't read the comments but the last one by social panda... Alexandra Kosteniuk or Jennifer Sahade or both or whatever anyway, they say they like to have women only tournaments.

  • 4 months ago · Quote · #239

    SocialPanda

    0110001101101000 wrote:
    Elubas wrote:
    0110001101101000 wrote:

    Spacial reasoning... but chess strength isn't how well you can visualize and it's often not how well you can reason. It's more about how many patterns you're familiar with.

    Well, all of the above, perhaps. Although I'm really bad at visualizing 3d objects, good thing chess is 2d! I think you can get good at any of it with practice, but it takes a certain kind of person to want to and enjoy practicing at it in the first place. Other types of people will spend time practicing something else.

    Personality is an interesting idea.

    Although not enough to explain 100 to 1 (or more?) ratio I think!

    There are 1474 male GMs and 33 female GMs.

    So, the ratio is 45 (44.666) to 1.

  • 4 months ago · Quote · #240

    Elubas

    Maybe he was mixing up ratios with percentages. 45 to 1 would be like somewhere in between 97-98% male I think.


Back to Top

Post your reply: