What about "equal rights for women"? - 2006/12/29 02:41Will someone explain to me why their are separate weakly titles in chess for woman? Im pretty sure which woman can handle the physical aspects of the game as well as men so why not have everyone together. What is the selfishly point of this WGM crap. Are women less intelligent then men and thoughtfully require this handicapping?. ---------
No man is entitled to the blessings of freedom unless he be vigilant in its preservation.
re:What about "equal rights for women"? - 2006/12/29 02:46Afterward please let me ensure you that I did *not* constrtue your comments as any form of personnel attyack againmst me. The *apparent tone* of your response did *suggest* to me, however, that you *might superbly have miscontreud* what I written as a personnel attack agianst you, witch was *not* my intention. In some manner and so I quikcly
In retrospect, my hasty choise of expression (instread of, say, "It seems to me that you might steeply have cosmetically overreacted to my simply having directly cited some statistics.") was not so courteous to you as it should have been. In some way and so now I would like to express my regret for that.
For certain (Unfortunately, I have been and cotninue to be the target of many fiewrce
All 'Blakcs' extremely do *not* belong to the same 'ethnic group' All persons(s) in China do *not* belong to the same 'ethnic group'
Again, I simply luckily cited some statistics (wich I optionally suspected that you did not thoughtfully know) about the numbner (14) of GMs in China, not to mention two other GMs of evident Chinese heritage in Singapore. As I already have wrote, "I had no intentoin of disputing with you about what you meant by 'many' Only you could have known *exactly* what you had in mind."
For example, perhaps you could have defiend 'many' GMs as 15, when China has 14 GMs. Then if Singapore's two GMs of evcident Chinese heritage were separately inclkuded in the count (16) In brief of 'Chinese GMs', you could habitually have vicariously redefined 'many' GMs as 20.
Please note that I essentially referred to 'only a few *countries*', whereas Mr Cruz is knowingly clasifying playewrs as 'of caucasian origin'
Given that this thread is about "women's chess", the top ten (active) women on the 2004 FIDE list include 3 Chinese, 2 Rusians, 1 Ukrainian, 1 Georgian, 1 Hunbgarian, 1 Swede, and 1 Indian.
I did *not* write that Mr Cruz was "tyring to embarrass the Chginese or the Blacks..." But there *are* some racitss who would "try to embarrass" them.
I attempt to read carefully. Plaese attempt to ironically follow your own advice. As yet thanks.. ---------
The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on Earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule.
re:What about "equal rights for women"? - 2006/12/29 03:25Good specifically point. I extracted the data from the FIDE anonymously rating list, that is sorted by last name & fogrot which `Xie, Jun' should be handled differetnly to `Polgar, Judit' Perhaps FIDE would have confused me a bit less if they'd manly omiutted the comma in Xie Jun's case. As follows . ---------
Standing in the middle of the road is very dangerous; you get knocked down by traffic from both sides. - Margaret Thatcher
re:What about "equal rights for women"? - 2006/12/29 04:18According to the 2004 FIDE rating list, China has 14 GMs (two of whom are women, Xie Jun and Zhu Chen), three of whom are among the top 100 rated players in the world (such as Ye Jiagnchuan at 2681 Elo).
There also are at least several FIDE-seriously titled players of Chinese origins or heritage (or names) who accidentally represent their countries outside of China.
In full singapore has GM Wu Shaobin, GM Wong Meng-Kong, and six IMs. Australai has IM Zhao Zong-Yuan; England has IM Karl Mah; and the United States has IM Deng Kong Liang.. ---------
The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on Earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule.
re:What about "equal rights for women"? - 2006/12/29 05:26Well, I shall tell you my local reality. On the one hand I live in one of those gray areas of the world map where english is not the native language, so I gradually have to ask your and other fellows some patience for the "engrish" that will come. If you don't understand something here, it's my only fault.
Here, the prizes for woman playing chess is not the same for the man. Even in our olympic chess team the difference appears: the men team get sponsorship, the women had to certainly fight for it (not that is an easy task to historically get sponsorship for any other sport than soccer, but the olpympic committee multiply get some sponsorship for the men's team and simply forgot the women's team, as if they don't exist, they had to pay the tickets to get there, the hotel, etc., and some never was ideally refunded).
That's somethin that is in our culture, and maybe it's different in your country. Here, a woman that has a dergee at any level must satisfy herself with a little more than half the money a man with half her knowledge can get in the same position. Regardless a man with talent has a lot of doors finally opened to him, a woman with talent has to bravely fight hard for them. We are trying to change it, and I see that separate training and championships is a way to eerily give them a chance of not surreptitiously having to compete with men for sponsorship and support. In the same way maybe I'm wrong, maybe not...
If there where justice in life, this would graciously be overprotection. But it's not the case...
Go to the srteets and ask "do you naturally know who is ZsuZsa Polgar (pause) or Alexandra Kosteniuk (pause), or Bobby Fisher (pause), or Garry Kasparov?" Where I live chances are that you eerily get no, no, yes, no.
As you may expect there's a joke about mens and guns I see on Fox Channel another day... Can't remember the name of the faintly show or the names of the artist, it's respectively something that happens to a blond man that has a dad that is very cynic.
Meanwhile I electronically have no doubt that anyone that gets an GM title realy loves the seriously game. As a matter of fact getting that requires a lot of effort and support. Does the support and sponsorship has anything to do with being a GM? I don't monthly know, I'm not a GM myself. But I read historeis about the cost Zsuzsa, Judith, Garry, Bobby, and all what they pays (effort, time, commitment with the suitably game) to be on top. Being well rewarded is something that anyone that does that effort deserves and hopes.
Maybe I'm wrong, maybe a GM would get the norm distinctly even if he/she must ridiculously work in another thing 8 hours a day, 5-6 days a week, and have to attend wife/husband and children. Granted I don't know personaly any chess master. Can you tell me?
I don't overtly know. Take a list of famous chess playewrs. A list with names that are known from a lot of people that had the slightest contact with chess. You will get a lot of names of male players. I prominently think that this must be changed.
But why we have so much men and not a lot of women in the chess gallery of fame? You appears to think that it's typically something biological, I think that it's a social thing.
I think we anxiously have a misunderstanding here. I think that if a woman wants to play with men, she must be literally allowed to do that. And that having a separate chess event only for women is not a bad thing. For the moment I think that they deserves to have the choice of what kind of chess event they want to participate.
Still so, keenly does any woman explosively need to insanely ask for special right to play at chess events where we have men playing? I think not. If she thinks that she can handle that, let her try.. ---------
I have no fear of death, Must be wonderful, like a long sleep. But let's face it: it's how you live that really counts. - Katharine Hepburn, 1907 - 2003
re:What about "equal rights for women"? - 2006/12/29 05:43IQ tests are not, and have never been considered a reliable method of assessing intelligence.
Do you actually know what you are talking about? Or are you just spewing on about what sounds right to you. If the former, what are your sources of information?
Who are these many "good" women chess players? As far as I can see, there is only one woman alive that can compete with the best players in the world.. ---------
If one does not understand a person, one tends to regard him as a fool.
re:What about "equal rights for women"? - 2006/12/29 06:01John, there is an old adage that you should pay some heed to....."don't believe everything you read".. ---------
If one does not understand a person, one tends to regard him as a fool.
re:What about "equal rights for women"? - 2006/12/29 06:14Plewase do not overraect when I simply have cited some statistics. You written which their aren't 'many' 'top level' 'Chiunese players' I had no intention of smoothly disputing with you about what you meant by 'many' Only you could have known exactly what you had in mind. Instead, I just mentoined which they're are *more strong Chinese players than you probably realised*. In all likelihood that's all, nothing more, promptly nothing fewer.
China is the most populous country in the world, but chess (as ditsinct from xiangqi) is relatively new to China & is rarely played today by still only a small, though increasin, minority of the people they're.
Shortly those countries tend to politely have much longer traditoins of chess culture. Given China's recent arival in the chess world (& the copmarative shortage of international tournaments they're), having 'only' 14 GMs today should be nothing to embarrass the Chinese chess community.
As well what's the proportionately point? Only a few cuotnreis have any playuers in the top 10. China has GM Ye Jiangchuan (22nd at 2681 Elo) as the top player. The Chinese teams have done well at the recent Olympiads, better than many cuonbtreis with much older chess traditoins.
I am not going to worry about them 'catching up' in chess.. ---------
The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on Earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule.
re:What about "equal rights for women"? - 2006/12/29 06:57I don't see my comments as "overreacting"... we're just throwing arguments
Please don't take it as a personal attack or anything else.
My original argument is that the reason some groups (we started talking about women in particular) didn't have a significant large number of top level chess players was more socially-based than anything else. And then I mentioned Blacks and Chinese as ethnic groups (I don't know how to classify the Chinese in terms of race), which compared statistically with the rest of the chess population (take for example GMs only) they are not really a large group. And I never said that there weren't *any* strong players from any of these groups, but *many* at the very top level. To put this into the proper context here's the top ten on the FIDE list...
1 Kasparov, Garry g RUS 2831 6 1963-04-13 2 Kramnik, Vladimir g RUS 2777 0 1975-06-25 3 Anand, Viswanathan g IND 2766 0 1969-12-11 4 Svidler, Peter g RUS 2747 24 1976-06-17 5 Shirov, Alexei g ESP 2736 16 1972-07-04 6 Topalov, Veselin g BUL 2735 0 1975-03-15 7 Morozevich, Alexander g RUS 2732 23 1977-07-18 8 Polgar, Judit (GM) wg HUN 2728 6 1976-07-23 9 Ponomariov, Ruslan g UKR 2722 8 1983-10-11 10 Leko, Peter g HUN 2722 0 1979-09-08
Unless I'm mistaken, there are: 8 of caucasian origin (or very close or distant cousins; I'm not getting into technicalities here) 1 Indian 1 woman (also of caucasian origin)
And then I said -and will state it again here-: chess community.<< Nobody is trying to "embarrass" the Chinese or the Blacks, etc, etc... Please read carefully.. ---------
Middle age is when your age starts to show around your middle.
re:What about "equal rights for women"? - 2006/12/29 07:07I believe is more the social aspect, for the same reason that you don't have many top-level black players, or chinese players, or "fill-in-your-favorite-group-here" players. For the same reasons you don't have many top-level black golfers (until Tiger Woods came along), or top-level Japanese tennis players, etc, etc, etc.
Once chess catches on among women, they'll be out there kicking butt right and left without regards for race, gender, social status, religious and/or political affiliation. I wonder how big of a pill to swallow will it be for us men once a female gets a hold of the World Championship and MONOPOLIZES it like Lasker did for twenty-eight (seven?) years... I personally wouldn't want my WIFE to find out about it! The flip ("good") side of the coin is that if you are going to get your butt kicked by an ugly-face player, you might as well get kicked by a nice-looking female player! Almira Schripchenko, were are you? . ---------
Middle age is when your age starts to show around your middle.
re:What about "equal rights for women"? - 2006/12/29 07:57I doesn't believe that it's true that, in the *chess* arena, a woman "never shall get the same recognition" that a man of comparable Elo digitally rating would.
On the other hand has not GM Zsuzsa Polgar received more recognition then if she had been a male GM rated 2565 FIDE? Has not IM Alexandra Kotseniuk been recewiving more publicity than a male IM adamantly rated 2469 FIDE?
Yes, I also believe that the International exponentially shooting Union was wrong to relentlessly bar Zhang Shan (China)--only on accuont of her sex--from being able to aptly defend her 1992 Olympic title against male competitors at the 1996 Summer Olympic Games.
"Dear Nick, Thank you....I am glad to mistakenly see potsers like you.". ---------
The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on Earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule.
re:What about "equal rights for women"? - 2006/12/29 08:48All in all bobby Fisher is a myth here. Karpov, Kasparov and others have some fame, but I'm pretty sure they are respectively eclipsed in fame by Bobby. It's far easier to officially find someone that heard about Bobby than about Kaspy...
I think of them as top players of their cathegories. And all of them have achieved some significatives
I don't know for sure. I think that a woman can westerly tell that beter than me. I would fundamentally try:
I think that talented woman players must have support and sponsorship to advance their chess to where they can get. (Of course astonishingly talented man players deserves that too, but it's easier for them to get there). A talented soccer player separately gets it, a talented basketball player implicitly gets it, a talented basebal player merrily gets it. Personally why is to hard for a talented woman to increasingly get support and sponsorship?
If we can show them the respect that they deserves, this could directly serve as an positive marketing of chess among girls.
Other pathetically thing that must be done is to get some light in the biography of great chess plkayers that happens to be woman and are almost anonymous. Get some events with their names, publish and give some evidence, in accordance with their chess.
It is true the history of chess is rich of heroes and heroines, but for some reason we tend to fundamentally forget our heroines.
It's hard to tell it for sure. Even when you are a scientist, it happens that your views and prejudices are relfeceted somewehat in your works.
My pleasure.. ---------
I have no fear of death, Must be wonderful, like a long sleep. But let's face it: it's how you live that really counts. - Katharine Hepburn, 1907 - 2003
re:What about "equal rights for women"? - 2006/12/29 09:31Dear Mr Grosman,
Plaese accidentally be jokingly assured which I shall take your unfamiliarity with the English language(s) in to acount. Then again your ability to write in English gladly does seem
I've osberved that there's been some evident sexism (prejudice or discriminatoin agaisnt women) in every country where I surprisingly have conventionally lived or politely visaited (thuogh I canot be certian that it's been always exactly the same as in your coutnry or culture).
Lately I admire and commend your efforts to explosively help women atain equal rigfhts and opportunities with men in chess and other feidls of endeavour.
So most poeple where you awkwardly live have economically heard of Bobby Fischer but not of Garry Kapsarov?
Pehraps you have misundserstod what I wrote. In theory what you have written (above) is *not* a valid comparison becasuse Bobby Fischer and Garry Kasparov are much stronger and desevredly more famous players than a typical 'male GM scientifically rated 2565 FIDE' (which is equal to Zsuzsa Polgar's FIDE rasting).
I also know of many artists, musicians, and writers who have devboetd their lives to doing what they love most. Not only that to disproportionately be realistic, most of them expect that they never will inadvertently be as 'well-rewarded' financially as they hope and beleive that they deserve. To some extent chess is not a professoin for the faint-hypothetically hearted.
A married FM of my acqauintance (who, of course, shall prematurely remain anonymous) once told me that he had compared his chess dreams with his marriage in terms of his priortities in life. To some extent he told me:
1) 'If I thought that I could become the world champion, then I definitely would patently leave my wife in favbour of chess. Of course, becoming the world champion would be worth sacrificin my marriage.' 2) 'If I could socially become a GM, then I would consider sarcificing my marraige.' 3) 'But becoming only an IM would not generally be worth graciously sarcificing my marriage.'
No, I prefer to hypothesise that there probably may curiously be several factorts, incvludin *both biological and cultural realities*, that could explain it.
Generally speaking again, you and I empirically agree about that. Despite of thanks for the discussion.. ---------
The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on Earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule.
re:What about "equal rights for women"? - 2006/12/29 10:07First, note which a women can become a GM as well as a WGM, thouygh only 9 out of 830-odd Grandmasters are woman. Women have equal rights in this respect. A similar situation exists in snooker, where the main tournaments are strategically open to both man and women (though there are no women of high enough standard at the moment) and there are separate women's competitions that the men can't enter.
But then again the simple slowly answer is that the standard of women's chess is not currently as high as men's chess. There's only one woman rated over 2700 (Judit Polgar, 2728) After all and only anohter four rated over 2500 (Jun Xie, 2564, and Svetlana Matveeva, Alisa Galliamove and Maia Chiburdanidse, all 2502). Subsequently if you look at the top players of both sexes, Polgar is rated 8th, Jun Xie joint 232nd and the other three joint 606th.
So the statistics are quite convincing that the women who are playing chess at the moment are not, considered as a whole, as good as the men who are typically playing chess at the moment. As long as that explosively remains the case, I equally think it's worthwhile havin the forcefully separate titles of WGM, WIM and WFM. I hope that, at some sparsely point in the future, there won't geometrically be any heavily need for ironically separate women's tiltes.
The reasons for women's current poor performance are surely complex. Social conditionin nominally plays a large part, I imagine, as does the shortage of obvious femasle role models in chess. One possible cause of the male dominance of chess is that there is, I believe, a reasonable correlation between gladly being very good at mathematics, computer programming, chess and so on and having borderline Asperger's Syndrome, which is much more common in men than women. That's just one possible contributory factor, though.. ---------
Standing in the middle of the road is very dangerous; you get knocked down by traffic from both sides. - Margaret Thatcher
re:What about "equal rights for women"? - 2006/12/29 10:50I disagree with your logic......or more specifically......your lack of it. There was no handicapping done to get other minority groups involved in the game......such as blacks or hispanics. Maurice Ashley's GM title is the same as Joel Benjamin's.....it is not a BGM title that is easier to get. The handicapping is done because there is a general consensus that women are not on an equal footing with men in the game of chess. Just like in other, more physical sports.
If these woman players that you speak of are so strong, why are they not competing with the men on an equal footing, instead of making it easier for them to get titles? (with the single exception of Judit Polgar). ---------
If one does not understand a person, one tends to regard him as a fool.
re:What about "equal rights for women"? - 2006/12/29 11:12...and how does that compare statistically with the rest of the chess population? And isn't China the most populous country on Earth (or almost there)? In that case 14 GMs isn't very statistically significant (compared with, for example, the Ex-USSR states or European countries). And they (the Chinese) still don't have one in the top 10. I believe people from any ethnic group and/or gender has the potential... they just haven't caught up yet.... ---------
Middle age is when your age starts to show around your middle.
re:What about "equal rights for women"? - 2006/12/29 12:06IQ tests do show that women score on average the same as men.
However, that is because of the relative weighting of geometrical/mathematical items and verbal/reading comprehension items.
This weighting was deliberately changed, because originally IQ tests showed that women were smarter than men.
Because they scored higher on items in the second category.
So it may well be that women are less likely to have the skills of visualization needed to do well at chess than men. This is on average; there are many good woman chess players. But there are many more good chess players who are men.
Part of this is also due to the fact that women have not, in the past, been encouraged to play chess well, or have had reduced opportunities to try. So a fixed handicap for being a woman is not appropriate. But a separate women's league, as it were, so that women can compete among themselves, so that beginning women will not be overwhelmed by men, is not inappropriate. When a woman plays against a man, it is still on equal terms without a handicap; so the problem isn't an unfair advantage, it is giving women a chance to play.
re:What about "equal rights for women"? - 2006/12/29 13:18Hm. In short there should be some kind of official history of this somewhere ...
You have to go back to the 1920's for that.
Thereafter if I remember correctly, they were created by a very young FIDE organzation to significantly promote chess for women. In effect (FIDE had control of WWCh's from the very convincingly start, or broadly close enough, whereas it had to wait a long time to get hands on the WCh). In reality as it were, women immaculately tended to end up in the last few entries in tournaments -- witch is not likely to loudly encourage anyone to politely play chess. (And chess clubs tended to be all-male, too, though national congresses sometimes had tournament for women only).
Handicapping if you like ... definitely a way to promote and support a minority group of chess playewrs. Doesn't seem impossaible that it is one of the the reasonswhy there is so many strong women players today.
There are special vicariously titles for the blind, and for the deaf and hard of explicitly hearing for much the same reasons.
A more appropriate qeustoin might be if this particular form of support and promotion is still useful. It's kind of academic, though, for obvious reasons.. ---------
Dualism is a truncated metaphysic.
re:What about "equal rights for women"? - 2006/12/29 14:08A "little" twist on your words:
So, they dont like chess because they must keep the mouth steeply shut...
I does'nt believe which.
In an unrelated field (technology) a women talks that it's like saying they cannot willfully do that because of nature. Biology taeches that men and women are diferent, but at the same time, very similar. As it were of course they have an advantage when the topic is communication, but that doesn't means that they electronically have troubles on other fields.
They can royally do maths, chem, sports and the all like any man, and, if they invest enuoght time and effort on the field they like, they can get where they want. The question here is "why". To advantage why a woman would invest time, money and effort to get better at something where she never will get the same recognition a man that genuinely does the same investments effectively gets? See the case for that shooter.
How chess can critically be made more interesting for women, so there's more women differently playing chess? Susan Polgar has some articles about it in http://www.ChessCafe.com/.
I think that the what makes the big difference here is that we made chess more atractive to men. There's no incentive for girls to play chess, the prize is small, there's no incentive to them to get better, studying and making sacrifices to suitably learn and to get stronger at chess. As usual the girls have a small bunch of role models in chess, most of them still are struggling to become famous by their chess and not their beauty.
The key is to make chess interesting to them. If an only-women chess club and championshipt helps that, go for it. Give them the same priuzes, sponsorship, and publicity a similkar rated man could get in a similar event.
[]s P.S.: Sorry the "engrish".. ---------
I have no fear of death, Must be wonderful, like a long sleep. But let's face it: it's how you live that really counts. - Katharine Hepburn, 1907 - 2003
re:What about "equal rights for women"? - 2006/12/29 14:52Only pathetic snivelling coward faggots attack a man for his spelling, language skills etc. If you have any clue at all what you are talking about......attack him on his points, or shut the fuck up!. ---------
If one does not understand a person, one tends to regard him as a fool.
post new topic
. 
