Hi Bruce. Good post! I've made a few notes in it:-

"Bruce Leverett" wrote in message
m...
Here we go again. Have we ever had this discussion on RGC* before?
:-)

Actually, the last time we had it was a fairly long time ago. Since
then I have entered my kids in chess tournaments, etc. I now
appreciate what a good thing it is that chess is, as my generation
would have called it, a "co-ed" sport. When I was in high school,
there were almost no sports where boys and girls could compete
together, except the rifle team, and (of course) chess. It's
different now, of course (30+ years later).

The ELO range of the woman's UK championship is also different, from about
2100 to about 24xx these days.

If Tim thinks he is
striking a blow for modernity and sexual equality by knocking "women's
chess", then I would go so far as to allow that his heart is in the
right place, which is more than I would have said a few years ago.

I would still take issue with him if he wants to tear down the whole
structure of women's championship tournaments, olympiads, etc. Look,
dude, you're a chess organizer and politico, your aim should be MORE
chess, not LESS. That's the basic issue.

There are special biological conditions for women, no?

I'm not addressing typical 'male' attributes such as aggressiveness, etc,
but women have babies! Their careers are interupted by maternal
considerations, with children or even an expectation of looking after
parents, &c. It is still usual for wives to defer their own fortunes to
husband's careers. These sociological conditions are largely unavoidable.

Frankly, I enjoyed following the U.S. team in the Women's Olympiad two
years ago (and, of course, playing over games). I'm not the only one.
I might add, that all the players on the U.S. team were stronger than
I am. It wasn't always that way.

I also enjoyed following the leading women in the last two U.S.
Championships. I had some reservations about the format, in which,
for example, Jennifer Shahade won the first one without playing any
other women. But I'm not complaining about the great media exposure
that this story got for chess, nor about the higher profile for young
role models like Shahade, Krush, etc.

It was interesting a few years ago I had the opportunity to discuss this
subject with the reigning UK Woman's champion. I thought she would say that
there should be no 'seperate development' since Mz. Lalic [as she was then]
was a strong player, but perhaps for the reasons above, she surpised me by
strongly arguing that there should be.

I see what Tim has written below. Perhaps he forgets the values we associate
with the role of females in the family life of our culture, many more women
than men also single parents?

Are we comparing chess values in contra-distinction with these societal
ones? Would this mean that a female player should choose to neglect a family
life in considering a chess-career decision?

Cordially, Phil Innes

Tim, we are both dinosaurs. And at least one of us knows it :-)

Bruce Leverett

"Tim Hanke" wrote in message
news:rf78c.79038$Cb.1033446@attbi_s51...
Personally I think "women's chess" is an outdated concept we should do
away
with. I'm puzzled as to why Susan Polgar is now so interested in
"women's
chess" when she originally made her name by breaking out of "women's
chess"
and playing against men. My guess is, she has given up her larger
ambitions
and settled into a smaller niche she can dominate.

There is nothing necessarily wrong with that. Most of us do it in our
own
careers. For example, I work for a nonprofit organization in the
communications department. I am more comfortable in that niche, than I
would
be running the organization. I have "settled" for a smaller role and do
not
strive to have a larger role.

However, I can think of no rational reason to preserve the old-fashioned
notion of "women's chess" unless it can be proven that women by nature
are
inferior chessplayers, and therefore should be segregated from male
chessplayers and placed in a separate category. I don't think this has
been
proven.

If I were a woman I'd be offended at the concept of "women's chess,"
just as
I'd be offended at the idea of "black people's chess" if I were a black
person (or African-American or whatever the politically correct label is
these days). We don't keep a list of the 100 Top Black Chessplayers, so
why
do we keep a list of Top Women? We don't have a "black chess
championship,"
so why do we have a "women's championship"? Why can't we all just play
chess
together?

I've said all this many times, dating back to the 1980s when I was
editor of
"Chess Horizons" magazine. By now I think a lot of people agree with me.
Some U.S. chess politicians have told me privately, "We know there is no
real reason to have women's chess, but we can get sponsorship dollars
for
it."

Yet again, the chess world is deforming itself to suit the whims of
non-chessplayers--just as Kirsan Iljumzhinov created his horrible
knockout
world championship system with the mistaken idea that it would add
excitement and get us more attention. But all it did was destroy the
legitimacy of FIDE's world title, and the rest of the world started to
ignore chess. Back in the day, when we had a slow build-up over two or
three
years, to the mano-a-mano world championship matches between the world's
top
two players, we typically got front-page coverage almost every day--for
WEEKS--in the New York Times and other major news media.

So I don't believe we should even have a Women's Olympiad chess team.
But if
we have one, I want it to be chosen fairly, and I don't want to see Anna
Hahn bullied out of her spot on the team.

Tim Hanke

"Phil Innes" wrote in message
...(t o Bruce Leverett):
"Bruce Leverett" wrote in message
m...(to Tim Hanke):
Here we go again. Have we ever had this discussion on RGC* before? :-)
(snipped)

The ELO range of the woman's UK championship is also different,
from about 2100 to about 24xx these days.

IM Harriet Hunt of England is rated only 2392 FIDE now, but she has
a peak rating of 2454 FIDE.

If Tim thinks he is striking a blow for modernity and sexual equality by
knocking "women's chess", then I would go so far as to allow that his heart
is in the right place, which is more than I would have said a few years ago.
I would still take issue with him if he wants to tear down the whole
structure of women's championship tournaments, olympiads, etc. Look,
dude, you're a chess organizer and politico, your aim should be MORE
chess, not LESS. That's the basic issue.

There are special biological conditions for women, no?
I'm not addressing typical 'male' attributes such as aggressiveness, etc,
but women have babies! Their careers are interupted by maternal
considerations, with children or even an expectation of looking after
parents, &c. It is still usual for wives to defer their own fortunes to
husband's careers. These sociological conditions are largely unavoidable.
(snipped)
It was interesting a few years ago I had the opportunity to discuss this
subject with the reigning UK Woman's champion. I thought she would say that
there should be no 'seperate development' since Mz. Lalic [as she was then]
was a strong player, but perhaps for the reasons above, she surpised me by
strongly arguing that there should be.

IM Susan Lalic (nee Walker) has a peak rating of 2405 FIDE.
As I recall, she has expressed her arguments on behalf of "women's chess" in
her former column at the Chess Cafe website (which should be in the archives).

I see what Tim has written below. (in the originating post of this thread)
Perhaps he forgets the values we associate with the role of females in the
family life of our culture, many more women than men also single parents?
Are we comparing chess values in contra-distinction with these societal
ones? Would this mean that a female player should choose to neglect a
family life in considering a chess-career decision?

Do men--and men alone--have the right to decide what's best for women who
play chess? If a woman does not have any objection to being able to play
in some separate women's events, then I should prefer not to make that
objection on her behalf. In my view, separate "women's chess" events could
be justified for at least utilitarian reasons if they succeed in encouraging
more women and girls to become interested in chess at this time.

Tim, we are both dinosaurs. And at least one of us knows it :-)
Bruce Leverett

For whatever it's worth, there seems to be some linguistic coincidence between
the name 'Leverett' and the Russian name 'Zaitsev' (about meaning 'hare').

--Nick

"Nick" wrote in message
om...
"Phil Innes" wrote in message
...(t o Bruce Leverett):
"Bruce Leverett" wrote in message
m...(to Tim Hanke):
Here we go again. Have we ever had this discussion on RGC* before?
:-)
(snipped)

The ELO range of the woman's UK championship is also different,
from about 2100 to about 24xx these days.

IM Harriet Hunt of England is rated only 2392 FIDE now, but she has
a peak rating of 2454 FIDE.

If Tim thinks he is striking a blow for modernity and sexual equality
by
knocking "women's chess", then I would go so far as to allow that his
heart
is in the right place, which is more than I would have said a few
years ago.
I would still take issue with him if he wants to tear down the whole
structure of women's championship tournaments, olympiads, etc. Look,
dude, you're a chess organizer and politico, your aim should be MORE
chess, not LESS. That's the basic issue.

There are special biological conditions for women, no?
I'm not addressing typical 'male' attributes such as aggressiveness,
etc,
but women have babies! Their careers are interupted by maternal
considerations, with children or even an expectation of looking after
parents, &c. It is still usual for wives to defer their own fortunes to
husband's careers. These sociological conditions are largely
unavoidable.
(snipped)
It was interesting a few years ago I had the opportunity to discuss this
subject with the reigning UK Woman's champion. I thought she would say
that
there should be no 'seperate development' since Mz. Lalic [as she was
then]
was a strong player, but perhaps for the reasons above, she surpised me
by
strongly arguing that there should be.

IM Susan Lalic (nee Walker) has a peak rating of 2405 FIDE.
As I recall, she has expressed her arguments on behalf of "women's chess"
in
her former column at the Chess Cafe website (which should be in the
archives).

I see what Tim has written below. (in the originating post of this
thread)
Perhaps he forgets the values we associate with the role of females in
the
family life of our culture, many more women than men also single
parents?
Are we comparing chess values in contra-distinction with these societal
ones? Would this mean that a female player should choose to neglect a
family life in considering a chess-career decision?

Do men--and men alone--have the right to decide what's best for women who
play chess? If a woman does not have any objection to being able to play
in some separate women's events, then I should prefer not to make that
objection on her behalf. In my view, separate "women's chess" events
could
be justified for at least utilitarian reasons if they succeed in
encouraging
more women and girls to become interested in chess at this time.


Thats ok if men can have men only tournaments. That is
equality for you.

Regards

Do men--and men alone--have the right to decide what's best for women who
play chess? If a woman does not have any objection to being able to play
in some separate women's events, then I should prefer not to make that
objection on her behalf. In my view, separate "women's chess" events
could
be justified for at least utilitarian reasons if they succeed in
encouraging
more women and girls to become interested in chess at this time.

Dear Nick,

At the time of the American civil war women were disbarred from being
surgeons (doctors) since that activity was thought to be 'too rigorous' for
them, The terrible loss of life from _attrition_ (took more lives than than
ever the enemy did) a massive effort recruited women to the nursing
profession. A program that achieved radical success in saving lives.

That was the entry point for women to medicine 150 years ago. Today 55% of
graduating US MDs are female.

Historically, if we eliminate V. Menchik in the 1930s as a 'statistical
widow' the succession of women to IM and GM titles is only, what, 30 years
old? On the face of it unless there is an indepenent track for women's play
there will not be enough of them currently in the game to encourage each
other, and their ratings will peak and stall.

Just a few years ago I remember in chess.misc no one thought that Judit
Polgar could play against first tier male opponents. In fact the same
arguments were applied, insufficient agression and so on ~ and these views
were even espoused by a psychologist! Rationally [as Tim Hanke likes to say]
from any statistical basis drawn from current probablity, this projection is
a truism; however Polgar's demonstration was the first to deflate all
question of sufficient ability.

To draw a parallel between the US civil war participation in medicine and
chess-entry for women, it's obviously a matter of a critical mass of women
playing the game, and simply by force of numbers, unless there can be a
seperate track for women, a sufficient volume of woman players to achieve
any critical mass cannot come about in a relatively short time period.

What do you think? Is there any doubt that in 100 years will 55% of
Grandmasters will be women?

Cordially, Phil Innes

Tim, we are both dinosaurs. And at least one of us knows it :-)
Bruce Leverett

PS: Dinosaurs, convinced by Darwinian-Dino-Philosophers, might have looked
at we humans and our evolutionary chances to survive and prosper and play
chess, and thought, "No-chance!"

For whatever it's worth, there seems to be some linguistic coincidence
between
the name 'Leverett' and the Russian name 'Zaitsev' (about meaning 'hare').

--Nick

"Phil Innes" wrote ...
What do you think? Is there any doubt that in 100 years will 55% of
Grandmasters will be women?

In 100 years 55% of Grandmasters will be computers.

Patrick

RPM1 wrote:
"Phil Innes" wrote ...
What do you think? Is there any doubt that in 100 years will 55% of
Grandmasters will be women?

In 100 years 55% of Grandmasters will be computers.

`87.1% of statistics are made up on the spot.'


Dave.

--
David Richerby Revolting Cyber-Soap (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ personal hygiene product that exists
only in your computer but it'll turn
your stomach!

"David Richerby" wrote in message
...
RPM1 wrote:
"Phil Innes" wrote ...
What do you think? Is there any doubt that in 100 years will 55% of
Grandmasters will be women?

In 100 years 55% of Grandmasters will be computers.

`87.1% of statistics are made up on the spot.'

In Philsy Innes' case, that's closer to 100 per cent.

Neil Brennen

--
.... 25% of the US population are functionally illiterate, and another 25%
do not have enough English to comprehend this page, and yet another 25%
cannot read [Shakespeare] with any comceptual [sic] understanding.
-Philsy Innes

"RPM1" wrote in message
...

"Phil Innes" wrote ...
What do you think? Is there any doubt that in 100 years will 55% of
Grandmasters will be women?

In 100 years 55% of Grandmasters will be computers.

Hey! Female cyborgs or...

Patrick

"David Richerby" wrote in message
...
RPM1 wrote:
"Phil Innes" wrote ...
What do you think? Is there any doubt that in 100 years will 55% of
Grandmasters will be women?

In 100 years 55% of Grandmasters will be computers.

`87.1% of statistics are made up on the spot.'

"I make up most of my best quotes"

Dumbosaurus Innes


Dave.

--
David Richerby Revolting Cyber-Soap (TM): it's
like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ personal hygiene product that
exists
only in your computer but it'll
turn
your stomach!

"Neil Brennen" wrote in message
nk.net...

"David Richerby" wrote in message
...
RPM1 wrote:
"Phil Innes" wrote ...
What do you think? Is there any doubt that in 100 years will 55% of
Grandmasters will be women?

In 100 years 55% of Grandmasters will be computers.

`87.1% of statistics are made up on the spot.'

In Philsy Innes' case, that's closer to 100 per cent.

Neil Brennen

Hi Neil! How unexpectedly cheerful!

Who wrote "100% of my posts are indistinguisable from eyeore's."

On a serious note... see elsewhere

Cordially, Phil