Originally posted by wormwoodThat movie didn't believe its own message. All that training and imparted wisdom for a tournament that awards a trophy, and damned if the kid didn't win it.
sometimes I wonder what's the point of having any titles to begin with. would hockey be different if the players were awarded titles like 'grandmaster of hockey'? grandmaster of tennis?
it's like different color belts in martial arts, a bit childish.
Daniel: Hey, what kind of belt do you have?
Miyagi: Canvas. JC Penney, $3.98. You like?
...[text shortened]...
Miyagi: Karate here.
[points to his belt]
Miyagi: Karate never here. Understand?
Exactly one woman has been in the top ten. The same has been in the top twenty. Perhaps two have been in the top 100 (I'm not certain on this point--it could be one or three).
Women's tees in golf are sexist because the top three women golfers can outdrive all but the top fifty men (I made that statistic up, but I'll wager it is close). Separate races for women in distance running are silly. When I took 173rd in my city's top road race, two women finished in front of me (I outkicked #3 after running with her for a mile).
In other words, it's the WSJ. You cannot really expect them to be rational and realistic on matters of social policy.
Originally posted by TigerhouseTo have a woman title is to say that women are not as good as men, they lack the ability to play chess as men. They are inferiour. I don't think so.
Just read this article, from the American newspaper the Wall Street Journal, that favors abolishing different titles for women, like the Woman Grandmaster (WGM) title. The argument given is that such titles are inherently sexist, and that women now have greater access to chess and training resources, so the division between men and women players is expect ...[text shortened]... way to soften their disapproval. Fischer and Kasparov certainly had their say on the subject.
There are not many black people getting somewhere in chess. So why not have a black world championship? Answer: This is to say the black people are inferior to others. I wouldn't agree to that.
There are not many gay people getting somewhere in chess. So why not have a gay world championship? Answer: This is to say the gay people are inferior to others. I wouldn't agree to that.
There are not many left handed people getting somewhere in chess. So why not have a left handed world championship? Answer: This is to say the left handed people are inferior to others. I wouldn't agree to that.
There are not many communist people getting somewhere in chess. Oh, sorry, I'm wrong here...
So having championship especially for women is like saying they are inferiour, and noone cares. If I said the same thing about black people, gay people or left handed people - people would surely protest, calling me names and perhaps even harass me of that reason. But if I say the same thing about women, people think that it's alright.
I say that women can play chess as good as men. Why there are no female world champions yet is beacuse they are fewer than men. And the same goes for black people, gay people, and left handed people as well.
Hi Fabs.
Agree 100% but that article mentioned there is easy money for
a good female player so perhaps they like things as they are.
Oh by the way Clan 285
FabianFnas is spot on. The cynical misogynist's view:
1. Having women's titles IS an admission of believing that women's minds are inferior to men's in the playing of chess and and an admission of the prejudiced belief that if women's titles were eliminated there would be almost no female chess grandmasters.
2. Women's minds ARE inferior to men's in the playing of chess and if women's titles were eliminated there WOULD be almost no female chess grandmasters.
Now, let the flaming begin. 😉
Originally posted by FabianFnasNonsense. The titles reflect the social conditions that discourage women, not their innate abilities.
To have a woman title is to say that women are not as good as men, they lack the ability to play chess as men. They are inferiour. I don't think so.
There are not many black people getting somewhere in chess. So why not have a black world championship? Answer: This is to say the black people are inferior to others. I wouldn't agree to that.
There a ...[text shortened]... than men. And the same goes for black people, gay people, and left handed people as well.
Golf tees are another matter, so the fellow that offered that comparison was obviously confused.
I have never lost a game to a girl over the board (and unlikely online either - most strong 'women' are just men pretending) but I have had potentailly lost positions in several games and always swindled my way out of it.
Take this gem of a game from my younger years - probably the closest to losing I have come (apart from a time a girl had mate in one but her flag fell)
Originally posted by Wulebgr"The titles reflect the social conditions that discourage women"
Nonsense. The titles reflect the social conditions that discourage women, not their innate abilities.
Golf tees are another matter, so the fellow that offered that comparison was obviously confused.
How so? What social condition do women have that men don't have?
Do you think that their innate abilities make women inferiousr to men in chess?
Of golf I know nothing.
Originally posted by FabianFnasWithout considering whether females are inferior at chess to males, consider the fact that male and female brains are *not* the same - there are significant differences.
To have a woman title is to say that women are not as good as men, they lack the ability to play chess as men. They are inferiour. I don't think so.
Given these differences, how much of a coincidence do you then think it would be if these differences still resulted in the exact same chess ability? I think it would be a very big coincidence indeed.
On that basis, it's very unlikely that females and males have the same chess ability. Sure, we can argue just how much of a difference there is, and which is the superior, but it's not the same level of ability.
And therefore, I think each sex should be allowed to separately set their own titles. If females have chosen lower standards than males, as opposed to say higher, then so be it; maybe these need to be adjusted. But separate titles there should be.
Originally posted by FabianFnasface not have: society has the conditions; women must negotiate their way through them.
"The titles reflect the social conditions that discourage women"
How so? What social condition do women have that men don't have?
Do you think that their innate abilities make women inferiousr to men in chess?
Of golf I know nothing.
Probably differs from country to country, but in many western cultures, and even more severely in eastern, women are often discouraged at an early age from becoming too involved in certain mental activities--math, science, chess. All this has changed dramatically in the past few decades, but remains an issue. Women's titles have been a factor, however slight, in provoking the changes. At some point in the future, they might have the contrary impact, but I don't think we are there yet.
Saying women titles should be abolished is patronizing. If the women concerned didn't want the
title they could decline it.
We have age banded tournaments when there are under 16's who can hold there own with the
world top ten - doesn't mean we should abolish under 16 tournaments.
All the women's title does is to confer a title on someone from a specific pool of players defined by gender in this case. I see little difference between this and say a championship
defined by an area such as America or Europe or England or Ealing. I'd object if women were
barred from taking part in some tournaments on account of their gender but as far as I know
they're not...well except maybe in some countries...but that's another issue.
It's fair to say the pool of female players is smaller than the pool of male players.