I agree and appreciate your insight. I hope that women’s tournaments do encourage more women to play, and that eventually, these tournaments do become obsolete. As for me personally, I don’t mind being outnumbered. I just want to keep doors open to women players and I get a little nervous when some suggest separating women from men’s chess tournaments. I would be very unhappy if my favorite tournament in Las Vegas was not open to women.
I would say also: If men’s or boys’ tournaments encourage more men or boys to play, more power to them. I think every member has the same value and importance, or if there are differences in importance, they are not related to gender.
But if that is the goal, when do we stop hoping and start evaluating the success? This isn’t happening.
GM Kosteniuk expresses a different goal: she thinks single-gender tournaments are superior.
I’ll assume that you are no longer speaking for “women in the USA” but just for yourself now when you express your comfort with mixed-gender tournaments. There may be other women in the USA who don’t have a strong preference for competing equally even if possible or who just prefer the benefits of single gender tournaments. Perhaps it is for these women that we hold women’s tournaments. We give women a lot of choices.
Would it bother you if there were some tournaments for men only, men whose sentiments are similar to those of GM Kosteniuk? It bothers some men that there are some tournaments for women only, that they are not eligible for. And it seems very unintuitive to me to hold 2 types of tournaments for (say) 10% of our membership and only one type for the other 90%, even though each member of the 90% is as important as each member of the 10%
Yes, this was my point.
I’m not against women only tournaments. Nor am I against scholastic only tournaments.
The problem exists though that if you are an adult male, you are limited in the tournaments you can play.
The scholastic tournaments don’t allow the adults however the “adult” tournaments allow the scholastic players to play.
The women only tournaments don’t allow men to play, but the women are certainly allowed to play in all other tournaments.
I realize that it would be silly indeed to have a men only tournament. It would also be equally silly to have an adult only tournament.
I just think it not good to discriminate against anyone, of either sex, from playing in a tournament.
Maybe it would help to look at certain tournaments as Specialization rather than discriminating.
The Senior Tournment specializes in Seniors.
Scholastic Tournaments specialize in Scholastic Players
Girls only tournaments specialize in Girls.
Tournaments for the Blind specialize in the Blind.
Tournaments for Novices specialize in Novice players.
Wayne, I am just suggesting that we have some tournaments specializing in Boys and in Men, to complement all those other categories. Fair?
Ron, I don’t think it’s silly at all to have men-only tournaments, any moreso than it is silly to have women-only tournaments. (Would the women in a women-only tournament mind having “just a few” men in it? They might.) Indeed this is what GM Kosteniuk advocates. And we know that some boys have a very hard time playing girls and feel unduly bad if they lose. GM Polgar runs a few boys only tournaments, but she cannot solve the problem alone.
Tough. Whenever I hear this complaint, I feel like forcing those boys to play against girls rated 400 points above them, dozens of times, until they get over it.
Bill Smythe
I disagree with you strongly. The mission of the USCF is not social engineering.
I pray that rather than feeling forced in any way, they find something that is suitable for them and their personality. If that’s not chess, fine, we’ve lost a member but a young person has avoided needless suffering.
Say what?!?
We are talking about children learning to live life.
A little boy really should not have any different emotions losing to a boy than a girl. If a boy has a particularly hard time losing to a girl, then I most vociferously agree with Bill Smythe. That little boy needs to learn how to lose to anyone regardless of sex, color or creed.
This has nothing to do with social engineering.
Women are presently in many roles that were at one time exclusive, in our society, to men. For instance there are women that are fighter pilots. Women are also in the military performing all roles in battle. These ladies are showing they have the ability to pull a trigger and bomb an enemy just as well, and sometimes better than their male counterparts.
Chess is a board game, and there is no evidence that males are better suited to compete than females. If a little boy is going to quit playing chess because he lost to a girl, that little boy needs a good talking to and needs a serious attitude adjustment.
I am certainly of the opinion that if women only tournaments are going to exist, then it is only right that men only tournaments exist as well. Equitable is equitable.
The reality is that in the tournaments we play in cannot afford to limit its attendance to any classification of people. We need any and all people to play.
The big tournaments like the National Open and the Chicago Open certainly will never exclude any group of people whether sex, or age delimited.
The local tournaments by the need of minimum numbers of participants to make the tournament a better experience, would also never exclude people.
The women only tournaments are limited in number and geography. They are also usually more for the higher rated women players. I think you would have a difficult time getting a lot of women to even play in these events if you held them frequently and regularly in Illinois, even the Chicago area.
The children tournaments are just for children. Sure the boys and girls only tournaments are there but certainly not in the majority or even at a number high enough to warrant any concern.
In the meantime, we will continue attempting to attract players of all ages and sexes to play in our tournaments.
It is social engineering, Ron. You say it isn’t, then go on to give a social-engineering argument. True or not, and whether or not this is the best way for people to learn to cope with those issues (I suspect it is not), that isn’t the USCF’s job. Our job is to promote chess for all kinds of people, not to tell people what sorts of emotions they should have.
Practically speaking, as long as everything is obviously voluntary, then there should be no problem. But especially with kids, I think there should be an option for single-sex competition. It deals with normal emotions and makes things easier for a lot of people. This is more important with scholastics, where there are large numbers of kids playing, unlike the old days when just a few like-minded fanatics would get hooked on the game.
David from your argument of social engineeirng, we should not allow children to play in our adult tournaments.
I personally do not relish the idea of losing to 11 and 12 year old kids.
I also really get tired of these kids having to kneel on the chairs because they are not big enough to play chess while sitting on the chairs. Booster seats would work, but that gets into the social engineering aspect, you know.
Really, chess is a board game. It is not a physical thing like gym class, which are now becoming coed as well for a number of years now.
Are you saying that the history of chess is that only boys were allowed to play, therefore if we allow girls to now compete that is social engineering?
It is a board game after all.
I’m saying just about none of that. Although I don’t mind the idea of adult-only tournaments.
The rest of your argument is humorous, I hope intentionally so.
Well, I see my work is done here…
Women have exceptional advantages over men in tournament play. At a recent World Open, I watched a very pretty Russian woman with a 2000+ FIDE rating playing against a 2300+ master. Her position was slowly deteriorating. Instead of making her move, she cocked her head, batted her eyes, smiled and softly offered him a draw. He became flustered, turned several shades of red, and then agreed. Before he even got a chance to analyze with her, three of her girl friends swooped in and took her off to lunch. There the poor master sat, no win, lost rating points, and no chance with her. I’ll leave out the names, he because he would prefer to be nameless; she, because of being shameless.
Several kids have told me girls do this all the time in scholastic chess. As in life, women can flirt their way out of trouble sometimes.
This is one instance where it really helps to play the board, not the “man.”
True, but it’s also in the spirit of the rules that distractions are to be minimized rather than maximized.
And probably for both genders, a mixed-gender setting has more potential for distractions and distracting emotions, even unintentional ones. I think there is a constituency on each side of the gender divide for single-gender events.
The way you group women together this way is insulting. Women have exceptional advantages over men in tournament play? Tournament play is more than just chess knowledge. It involves endurance, efficient time management, ability to focus and tune out distractions, etc. This master may be great at chess, but he is going to have to cope with all types of players, including women. Why couldn’t he just say no to the draw? What if this guy sits next to a pretty woman in a classroom? Will he freeze up and fail an exam? He has to learn to cope with women everywhere . This is not social engineering, just learning to live with all people.
I agree. Now, why is it you say women need tournaments with no men in them? Can’t women just say no? Can’t they just learn to live with all people, including men?
Absolutely! This is exactly what I am advocating. However, I cannot change everyone’s mind and I am certainly flexible. I agree with your post explaining why most tournaments must remain coed. The women’s only tournaments are limited in number and draw the top female players. If men want some tournaments like these, limited in number and similar geographically, I am fine with that. I just don’t want to go down the road of limiting players. It should be the special case, not the norm. Like I said before, I get nervous when people start discussing separating women from men in chess tournaments because it would hurt the average woman chess player. I think you have explained that very well in the above post, but some will never agree.
He’s describing his experience, or what stuck in his memory. I don’t think he’s saying all women would find it in their personalities to use such techniques.
By the way I’ve seen similar things, but surely not from most women players.
I’m with you until the last sentence. There you are assuming your conclusion: that he will have no choices but coed tournaments unless he is an elite player.
All true, and he has the loss of rating points to prove it. But the mission of the USCF is not to force tournament players to learn to live with all people. Maybe this is one of those life lessons that is hard for him, as it is for some men.
Frankly, back in my woman-hunting days, I reached the conclusion that a chess tournament was not the place for woman-hunting. Different mindset needed. But I’m sympathetic to the poor guy …
I am also sympathetic to your fear that your favorite tournament would bar women. I know nothing about the specific tournament you mention. For your sake I hope you always have access to your favorite tournaments, but one should not make rules for 90% of the membership on that basis.
My largest concern is at the level of children and teenagers. They are dealing with issues of developing sexuality, and I think it is a big relief for them if they can separate that from the issues of chess competition.
Like the Truong Championship for Boys (that would create a scheduling nightmare) or the US Men’s Championship, or having a Boys’ prize whenever there is a Girls’ prize, or a Men’s Section whenever there is a Women’s Section?
Chessgeek, I was only trying to lighten up this all too serious subject with an anecdote to show that women are not just equal but maybe even superior in some cases. Consider this, if you were sitting across from Brad Pitt and he smiled at you and offered a draw, would you be thinking only about chess?
There probably should not be separate tournaments or special prizes as I believe we are all equal. But there are special prizes in all US tournaments. Aren’t the class prizes just as special as having a woman’s prize? To maintain interest and to develop players, these things just have to be. If the USCF was 50% or more women, then the issue would be naturally solved.
In working with children I have found that there is no significant difference in skill level or ability to learn, both in chess and in math/science, until the age of 13. After that it appears that social pressures rather than any genetic difference cause girls to leave these analytic fields to the boys. Chess can be learned by many paths; no one method works. Young girls, if brain theory is correct, use their whole brain to assess and interpret data. Often they come up with deeper solutions than boys who usually throw our the first idea that comes to mind, right or wrong. Boys learn more by trial and error, girls try to solve without making error.