Would such trophies enhance or demean female accomplishments, and would they encourage or perhaps
discourage female participation?? And, do you think such trophies would add to/detract from scholastic
competitions (which of course, are gender neutral).
Rob Jones
I haven’t done many tournaments with trophies for females (let’s ignore the NGIT, AGN, US Women’s and other tournaments that are limited to females only). The Peoria National JH in the late '80s (1988?) had trophies for the top five females in each section (3 sections - K-8 championship, K-9 championship and K-8 under some rating I can’t remember and which had half of the tournament). In the under section the top female turned out to be a mis-coded guy and we had to call back up the four ladies who were given 2nd-5th, upgrade their trophies, and then award the corrected fifth place.
At the start of that event there was a bit of controversy about those trophies, but after ignoring the majority that didn’t really care one way or the other there were more people who said it was a good thing to do than otherwise.
Anecdotal evidence is that the mixed doubles prizes at the CCA events have increased female participation and the class structure of many of those events means that even lower-rated teams have good chances (there is a 2200 average rating limit, but if I were a 2380 in the U2400 section I’d probably be more interested in pairing up with a 1385 in the U1400 section than a 2018 in the U2200 section). Mixed doubles prizes allow for increasing female participation while making those prizes available to everybody in the event.
In our club championship in the past, we experimented with a top female prize. We usually have a Top Senior, Top Junior, Top U Age X, rather than have trophies by rating class since it is an unrated tournament. This year, we dispensed with our normal set and gave out trophies to the top 3 and top 3 juniors. If it helps to promote the game, can an extra trophy or three to hand out be bad?
I don’t believe in sex specific trophies and have never ordered any for my tournaments.
so, do you believe that a young male finishing 5th would have a right to be upset when he
did not receive a trophy, but a female who finished 10th did because she was the top finishing female??
Rob Jones
Just as a sidebar here, the thread name here is a misplaced modifier which suggests that the trophies themselves have gender, i.e. male and female trophies and that the trophies themselves are “top finishing”
Rob - Don’t you want to change the title to something like Trophies and Awards for Top Finishing Females?
Thanks
Mike
Mike, interesting point, and one I had not considered. I guess you could have a queen at the top
of such trophies–would that make them “gender-specific” , or more so??
By the way, I had a sometimes (unfortunately) heated discussion with another chess educator last
Friday night who pointed out that percentage wise, according to participation, there are as many
women titled players as men. He further gave his opinion that the key reason that more women
have not achieved higher levels, such as IM, and GM, is that they have chosen to primarily participate
in “lesser” rated female specific pools. Thus, the very notion that women cannot compete on a 1 v 1
basis may in fact, be a perception that is fostered by a belief that these top female masters, they
themselves have. The idea being that while initially, if more females participated in the “general”
circuit, then eventually far more of them would because of the stronger competition forging their
own skills, emerge at the top alongside their male counterparts.
And then the question that comes to mind is this: Do all-female events, in the long run then help
or harm the growth of women to the top levels of chess???
This is a difficult topic to broach without some, regardless of the position taken, using terms such
as sexist, etc. I admit, for myself, a lack of answers and knowledge in this area, although, I have
been trying to learn and collect data for a few decades now. So, for those who would first use the
term sexist, I would prefer uniformed. And as such, appreciate your input on this topic.
Rob Jones
I would not place a queen on top of a gender-specific trophy because the queen less valuable than the king in chess. The queen is expendable whereas the king is not. Also there are some unfortunate negative connotations that go with queens that I will not expand on in this forum. I see no harm with having more trophies and it is great when the top finisher for a specific trophy is not the only participant in the sub-group. I also indicated elsewhere that if a female wins the event she should have the place prize as well as the gender-specific prize.
Mr. Stokes, thank you. I have been considering the last sentence quite a bit as to its appropriateness.
Rob Jones
Mr. Stokes, thank you. I have been considering the last sentence quite a bit as to its appropriateness.
Rob Jones