|
Post by robeiae on Feb 9, 2017 8:53:52 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2017 9:21:28 GMT -5
Agree that I can't see a good reason for a separate women's title. Chess is not basketball or football, where women are at an inherent, pretty much insurmountable disadvantage playing men. To the extent there are fewer women chess greats, I think it's more a matter of fewer women pursuing chess to those levels.
As far as her getting pissed at all her opponents being women, I'd have to hear more to decide what I think.
If it was in a situation where opponents were chosen by lottery and by random chance she drew all women, she's being silly, IMO.
But if they are deliberately choosing to just have women play women, not top-ranking men, I can see her point. In that event, she and the other women are being shoved off into a corner and not permitted to compete. They are creating a separate de facto women's league for no good reason.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Feb 9, 2017 9:31:10 GMT -5
Well, the way these work--if I remember correctly*--is that results impact the next opponent, plus players can't get stuck playing just black or just white.
But from the article:
Also, it's probably worth noting that the highest rated female Grandmaster of all times--Judit Polgár--refused to compete for the Women's World Championship because she thought it ridiculous.
* In high school, I played competitively and was nationally ranked. Well okay, my ranking was like at number 12,000, but still...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2017 9:57:06 GMT -5
Provided that's the case -- that it was coincidence her opponents were women and they weren't saying "ok, now you girls play with girls" (or you black people play with black people, etc.) -- she was being peevish.
I am not in general in favor of separate women' competitions, except in sports where not having them would pretty much mean women couldn't play at all, as in sports requiring strength and power. In intellectual pusuits like chess, I find it insulting.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Feb 9, 2017 10:02:53 GMT -5
I've been following this a little. Chess (and go, which suffers from the same phenomenon) raises some interesting, awkward, and so far unanswered questions. No woman in either game's history has ever reached the levels of the top male players, even in recent years with more female players. Some point to this as evidence of actual biological brain differences, others argue that historically, boys have been much more likely to receive encouragement to devote themselves to study of the game. (In Asia, you can actually make good money as a go player, if you're really good, and top players are identified at a very early age and essentially make it their full time profession. Of course, it's mostly been boys who've been nurtured as go prodigies - few girls, even if they showed a talent for the game, would be allowed such a privilege.)
Anyway, Hou Yifan, like several other female champions, has protested gender-segregated leagues, wanting to prove that women can compete on an equal footing with men. The problem at the Gibraltar tournament is that while women were a small percentage of the total number of players, Yifan drew another woman as an opponent in 7 out of her 10 matches. Supposedly matches were determined randomly by computer. So getting another woman 7 times out of 10 is pretty improbable, statistically. She was basically calling shenanigans and suspected that she was deliberately being paired with other women. The event organizers have denied it.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Feb 9, 2017 10:03:54 GMT -5
*pats Cass' head*There, there. Don't you know that women-folk lack the necessary aggression to compete with men-folk. Just ask Kasparov: I have to admit it makes me giggle, this kind of sexism oozing from nerdville (I say that as a proud resident of the same).
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Feb 9, 2017 10:08:02 GMT -5
I've been following this a little. Chess (and go, which suffers from the same phenomenon) raises some interesting, awkward, and so far unanswered questions. No woman in either game's history has ever reached the levels of the top male players, even in recent years with more female players. I'm not sure what your standard is, there. Polgár--whom I mentioned above--was as high as 8 in the world. And she's beaten a bunch or world champs in her career.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Feb 9, 2017 10:30:32 GMT -5
Polgar is (IIRC) the only woman to have reached the top 100. So is she an outlier, or will we see more women in the upper ranks over time? It's still unknown. This article argues that the lack of representation of women among top players can be explained statistically, but I think is a bit too glib in dismissing the self-selection argument (i.e., that fewer women play because fewer women have the aptitude, dedication, or whatever it takes to become a top player). I honestly don't know, but I think something more is going on than just "Patriarchal society doesn't encourage women to play chess." Anyway, Hou Yifan's protest does look a bit peevish, but I can understand why, in her position, it may have seemed awfully suspicious that she just happened to keep getting paired with the few other women in the tournament.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Feb 9, 2017 10:39:05 GMT -5
Well, I have my own theory in that regard (why there aren't more women at the top):
Young boys and girls like to play games. They learn to play games and when they find one they like and are good at, they play them more often. This is true of all sorts of games, boardgames, computer games, and even athletic games (including sports). But girls mature faster than boys and are quicker--as they head into their teens--to leave the game-playing behind in favor of other pursuits. So girls are less likely to get wrapped up in pursuits like chess to the extent required to become Grandmasters.
And then there's the whole Cold War angle...
FWIW.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Feb 9, 2017 10:41:29 GMT -5
Anyway, Hou Yifan's protest does look a bit peevish, but I can understand why, in her position, it may have seemed awfully suspicious that she just happened to keep getting paired with the few other women in the tournament. And look, on this, I find it stupid, regardless. Again, so what if her opponents were women? It's not like it means she had less of a chance of winning. And the sex of her opponents--again--has no impact on the actual games.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2017 10:49:48 GMT -5
I have no answer. All I can offer is entirely anecdotal. I was a good player as a kid; could beat all my adult relatives handily when I was 10 or 11. (And memorably, one of my dad's friends who fancied himself a good player. My dad -- who taught me to play -- had bragged about me, the guy condescendingly offered to play me, and I kicked his ass. Poor dude was still being teased about it at my dad's wake last summer.)
Anyway. I looked into chess club, but dropped out pretty quickly, not because I was intimidated by all the patriarchy but because I was bored. I much preferred extracurricular activities that I found more active and creative, like drama club or the newspaper. Also, it was all boys, and nerdy boys at that. Meh.
I'm guessing there's a fair amount of self-selection going on. That said, I do think a certain amount of patriarchical attitudes and condescension may help lead to some of the self-selection at an early age. E.g , my dad's friend -- would he have been quite so condescending (and god, he was) had I been my brother and not a cute tiny girl with ponytails and a wee quiet piping little voice? I tend to think not.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Feb 9, 2017 10:53:23 GMT -5
The Cold War angle applies to chess, but not go.
As far as women maturing faster and thus not being stuck in the sort of obsessive fascination required to become a grandmaster, that is possibly true, and would be another form of self-selection. But if you read about go and chess prodigies, they are usually obsessed at a very early age, showing potential grandmaster ability (beating skilled, much more experienced adults) well before they hit puberty. Are there more girls like Polgar, who have shown they can play at that level, who just shrug and give it up when they become more interested in other things?
(Edit: Or Cass, apparently. Was this guy actually good? Maybe those nerdy chess club boys drove you away from a potential career as a grandmaster!)
I find the whole thing quite fascinating, as a serious game player myself (but not a very good go player and an even worse chess player). What is it about those games that produces child prodigies? IQ-wise, I am probably as smart as most grandmasters, yet they were playing chess better than me at age 9. It is definitely something in the brain, or there is no way a 9-year-old would be able to beat someone who's been playing seriously for 20 years.
As for Yifan, I think you're missing the point - it wasn't about whether the individual games were fair, it was her believing (rightly or wrongly) that the event organizers were trying to segregate it. If that were true, I can understand her taking offense.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Feb 9, 2017 10:58:44 GMT -5
Anecdotally, my two oldest loved to play games. The oldest--the girl--was quite good at many of them and routinely crushed her younger brother in pretty much everything, including first-person shooter games. But eventually, she became more interested in other pursuits, from dancing to hanging out with friends to *gasp* boys. My son has taken much longer--from an age persepctive--to break his fascination with some games. He's waaaaaay better at most of them now than she is or ever was. I really think that's how it usually works.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Feb 9, 2017 11:06:05 GMT -5
As for Yifan, I think you're missing the point - it wasn't about whether the individual games were fair, it was her believing (rightly or wrongly) that the event organizers were trying to segregate it. If that were true, I can understand her taking offense. Well again, from what I remember of how this stuff works, the color you play and your result in one round dictates the next pairing. So you play the hand you're dealt and move on. Imo, she dropped the game because she wanted out of the tournament for some other reason and just used the sex angle as a cheap excuse. Note that in the game where she folded up shop, her opponent was a man.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2017 11:21:36 GMT -5
FWIW, the teacher in charge of chess club thought I had talent, and was disappointed when I dropped out.
As for my dad's friend I beat -- my dad thought he was good, and he regularly defeated all his fellow teachers, including my dad (my dad was a teacher and so were most of his friends). My dad thought he was a tad too smug; he wanted me to play him because (1) if I won, it would certainly take the guy down a peg, but (2) if I lost, the guy would look like an ass if he bragged about beating a little girl. I can say he was a better player than my dad or my other relatives, and certainly than any of the kids I'd played. FWIW, I beat the boys I played in chess club before I dropped out, which they did not like. (And that rather stung me, to be honest. I felt like they were disproportionately bad sports about me winning.) At that age, I suspect I had a longer attention span than they did, but that difference might not have continued into our teens. Hard to say.
As for my own ability, I'm sure I was better than most kids are, and I do superlatively well on logic tests and such (that's how I got into the fancy pancy law school), but of course that wouldn't necessarily mean I'd become a grand master. Reaching that level requires a combination of natural talent and application -- and the latter requires a passion that I just didn't have. I never play now -- I don't have any friends who are interested nor who have the time if they were interested. The last time I played was law school. Sad.
I really do think there's a lot of self-selection happening here, and it happens young. I think it's important for chess teachers, like any other teachers, to make a conscious effort to avoid making sexist assumptions or discouraging girls from playing, but other than that, self-selection will happen.
|
|