Judit Polgar is not the first woman to compete in open competition. Vera Menchik (1906-1944) would play in tournaments with Capablanca and other great players. There was in fact a 'Menchik Club', comprised of grandmasters who had been beaten by her.
@michuk said in #1:
> I did Further Mathematics at college and in our Advanced Statistics class we were taught about this thing called mean of population. They said the mean of two population samples of people cannot be the same even if the samples are from same population of things. In other words if you segregate chess players and calculate a Gaussian distribution with mean and standard deviations in two population samples you will always have a gap. The larger population being the one the more impressive outliers.
>
> Why don't FIDE know mathematics? Why are they segregating women from men and then saying there is a gap in the mean performance of men vs women. It literally is a mathematical fact.
>
> If men and women played in the same tournaments the rating gap would disappear. Don't you agree?
There is no segregation, there is open section and women-only section. Every woman is more then welcome to play in the open section, like Judith Polgar and some others did. The problem is that if everyone would play in the same section, probably the first 20 places would be all men. Candidates would be all men, world champion would always be a man, and so forth. Maybe a few exceptions here and there. This is why there is a women-only section, so that female chess players can compete and win titles in their section.
Why would anyone take that option away from women? Can't the women chose for themselves?
> I did Further Mathematics at college and in our Advanced Statistics class we were taught about this thing called mean of population. They said the mean of two population samples of people cannot be the same even if the samples are from same population of things. In other words if you segregate chess players and calculate a Gaussian distribution with mean and standard deviations in two population samples you will always have a gap. The larger population being the one the more impressive outliers.
>
> Why don't FIDE know mathematics? Why are they segregating women from men and then saying there is a gap in the mean performance of men vs women. It literally is a mathematical fact.
>
> If men and women played in the same tournaments the rating gap would disappear. Don't you agree?
There is no segregation, there is open section and women-only section. Every woman is more then welcome to play in the open section, like Judith Polgar and some others did. The problem is that if everyone would play in the same section, probably the first 20 places would be all men. Candidates would be all men, world champion would always be a man, and so forth. Maybe a few exceptions here and there. This is why there is a women-only section, so that female chess players can compete and win titles in their section.
Why would anyone take that option away from women? Can't the women chose for themselves?
@islandification said in #10:
All sports have separate events for males and females so why not chess?
Chess is not a physical sport. At school, work, ... there is no segregation of gender (at least not in Western countries). So it makes sense to have a separate discussion for chess only.
All sports have separate events for males and females so why not chess?
Chess is not a physical sport. At school, work, ... there is no segregation of gender (at least not in Western countries). So it makes sense to have a separate discussion for chess only.
@LukaCro said in #12:
> Why would anyone take that option away from women? Can't the women chose for themselves?
FIDE has separate titles, events and prize money for women. The open events are there but the inherent rating gap means top women players don't get invited much to the elite chess invitationals where guys with excessive amounts of Elo compete for huge sums of money. It's like a chess cartel.
The top women are left with effectively one choice, play women-only events to win the much smaller top prizes.
Elite chess players make their money from invitationals not opens.
> Why would anyone take that option away from women? Can't the women chose for themselves?
FIDE has separate titles, events and prize money for women. The open events are there but the inherent rating gap means top women players don't get invited much to the elite chess invitationals where guys with excessive amounts of Elo compete for huge sums of money. It's like a chess cartel.
The top women are left with effectively one choice, play women-only events to win the much smaller top prizes.
Elite chess players make their money from invitationals not opens.
Hardly in any sport, men and women compete against each other instead of just playing with their gender players.
This discussion is so predictable .....
Generally, chess would benefit more from more women participating (and more of other groups as well).
Young male chess players also have other reasons to want greater female participation if they want to meet people with similar interests.
Humans evolved to be best in mixed groups and even today they are interesting & more fun to be in than all male groups.
If greater participation is desired then encouraging it should be welcomed (and not making them feel unwelcome should also be obvious).
Generally, chess would benefit more from more women participating (and more of other groups as well).
Young male chess players also have other reasons to want greater female participation if they want to meet people with similar interests.
Humans evolved to be best in mixed groups and even today they are interesting & more fun to be in than all male groups.
If greater participation is desired then encouraging it should be welcomed (and not making them feel unwelcome should also be obvious).
@michuk said in #14:
> FIDE has separate titles, events and prize money for women. The open events are there but the inherent rating gap means top women players don't get invited much to the elite chess invitationals where guys with excessive amounts of Elo compete for huge sums of money. It's like a chess cartel.
>
> The top women are left with effectively one choice, play women-only events to win the much smaller top prizes.
>
> Elite chess players make their money from invitationals not opens.
How would the abolishment of the Womens WCC or Womens Olympics or any segregation help the playerpool get invited to elite chess events more often?
@michuk said in #7:
> What you are saying about motivated men is the same for motivated women the sample sizes are different.
> This gap exists even without segregated chess events.
> Any possible argument you can make about gender divide in chess can be applied to chess played in different countries.
> The mathematics of statistical analysis explains how population sample means differ it doesn't provide the reason for the gap. The Gaussian curve is mathematical model of a societal trend.
> Emperical work on populations suggest that the larger the sample size the more chance you have of outliers and the better performance you have for those outliers compared to the rest of the population.
> In short your point is valid about societal pressures making smaller female sample sizes. Mathematics is where we express these societal factors.
@michuk said in #1:
> If men and women played in the same tournaments the rating gap would disappear. Don't you agree?
As you said, the sample size it what decides how many outliers there are and how big the elo gap will be.
So you answered your question already: Norwegians and Indians are also in the same playerpool, yet there is the rating gap.
Abolishment of male-female segregation would not mean that there would be more female outliers.
The number of female players stays the same, and as long as more males are interested in chess than females, that will not change.
> FIDE has separate titles, events and prize money for women. The open events are there but the inherent rating gap means top women players don't get invited much to the elite chess invitationals where guys with excessive amounts of Elo compete for huge sums of money. It's like a chess cartel.
>
> The top women are left with effectively one choice, play women-only events to win the much smaller top prizes.
>
> Elite chess players make their money from invitationals not opens.
How would the abolishment of the Womens WCC or Womens Olympics or any segregation help the playerpool get invited to elite chess events more often?
@michuk said in #7:
> What you are saying about motivated men is the same for motivated women the sample sizes are different.
> This gap exists even without segregated chess events.
> Any possible argument you can make about gender divide in chess can be applied to chess played in different countries.
> The mathematics of statistical analysis explains how population sample means differ it doesn't provide the reason for the gap. The Gaussian curve is mathematical model of a societal trend.
> Emperical work on populations suggest that the larger the sample size the more chance you have of outliers and the better performance you have for those outliers compared to the rest of the population.
> In short your point is valid about societal pressures making smaller female sample sizes. Mathematics is where we express these societal factors.
@michuk said in #1:
> If men and women played in the same tournaments the rating gap would disappear. Don't you agree?
As you said, the sample size it what decides how many outliers there are and how big the elo gap will be.
So you answered your question already: Norwegians and Indians are also in the same playerpool, yet there is the rating gap.
Abolishment of male-female segregation would not mean that there would be more female outliers.
The number of female players stays the same, and as long as more males are interested in chess than females, that will not change.
Men are not stronger on average than women at chess. There simply are a lot more men playing chess, both weak and strong. But we don't look at the weak males. We only look at the strong males, of which there are proportionally more than strong women.
It is like a sports team from a big school vs one from a small school. The big school needs to be in a different division.
Allowing women to have their own competitions gives them chances at trophies and also lets them avoid men who'd flirt the entire game. This makes more women want to join. Belgium claims to be progressive but is not.
It is like a sports team from a big school vs one from a small school. The big school needs to be in a different division.
Allowing women to have their own competitions gives them chances at trophies and also lets them avoid men who'd flirt the entire game. This makes more women want to join. Belgium claims to be progressive but is not.
I say the 4 strongest women wanting a spot should be guaranteed a spot at the candidates match, regardless of their lower odds of winning.
This obsession with ‘equality’ annoys the hell out of me. People either want to participate in something or they don’t. I really don’t give a rats arse who I play against. I don’t care how good they are or not. They either want to play or they don’t.
There are open categories and if the best player, the winner, is a purple chicken, I really don’t care.
If you want to tackle women being segregated, ask those that make a point of saying that women are second lass citizens, not those that give women a chance to play against other women and against any other opponent they come up against.
There are open categories and if the best player, the winner, is a purple chicken, I really don’t care.
If you want to tackle women being segregated, ask those that make a point of saying that women are second lass citizens, not those that give women a chance to play against other women and against any other opponent they come up against.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.