Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 39

Thread: 7c. Women's CFC Titles (Moved/Seconded Vlad Drkulec / Julia Lacau-Rodean)

  1. #11
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Ottawa Ontario National Master Former Gov.
    Posts
    10,761
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vladimir Drkulec View Post
    ...
    There are criticisms that the female players might just obtain the titles and then quit...
    This is a 'problem' with titles or ratings in general, i.e. it is not confined to female players. One man here in Ottawa quit chess after many years of playing, after he reached a 2200+ rating. However I think such players are rare exceptions. Also, a similar 'problem' is players sitting on their ratings, i.e. not playing in tournaments that seem to them to be too great a risk to their rating. Again I think this is exceptional, although possibly not quite as rare. Nevertheless I don't think we ought to go very far out of our way to try to encourage such players to keep playing as often as we would hope.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Ottawa Ontario National Master Former Gov.
    Posts
    10,761
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pierre Dénommée View Post
    There should be more Women only completions, especially at the Youth level. This would be more helpful to Women Chess then Women titles of inferior value.
    It may be possible some women find women's only competitions at least as offensive as special titles for women. Judit Polgar refuses to play in such events, for example (not sure how strong she was when she began to hold this view).

  3. #13

    Default The Separate Women's System - Proof of Success??

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Pacey View Post
    I think, given that there are still far more men than women playing in organized chess events, and that probably as a consequence there are so few women among the top players of either gender, either nationally or internationally (i.e. Judit Polgar currently), a seperate 'system' for women as Bob calls it is something that can be retained - not that we have much influence over whether FIDE continues to retain such a 'system'.

    This 'system' can be retained, that is, at least until there is a much greater percentage of female players, at which point it is probable that there will be a much higher percentage of females amongst the top players of either gender (nationally or internationally), and if so then the seperate 'system' can be shed without any misgivings at that point by both FIDE and the CFC. Until then, I'm in agreement with Mark that this motion could help the CFC (on the whole, anyway, given I suspect while some women may dislike the effect of it, many women, especially girls, will like it) if it is passed.
    Hi Kevin:

    Do you know when FIDE introduced the separate women's chess system? I'm afraid I don't exactly, but what I do know is that when I started organized chess in 1964, it seemed then to have already been around forever.

    So the purpose of the system is to encourage more women to play chess. It is my view that in 45 years the percentage of women players has increased minimally.

    If this is the case, where is the proof that the separate women's system is accomplishing anything? Everyone defends the system, and mouths the goal, but there is no proof it works.

    Women today are participating more in every aspect of life now, in areas where previously their numbers were low. So it is my contention that the increase in women in chess that we've seen would have happened anyway, WITHOUT the system.

    And if that had been the case (no separate system), women would not have been treated as second class chess player citizens. who needed diluted titles and a diluted system ( which impliedly gives them the message that they cannot play as well as men ).

    Bob A

  4. #14
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Ottawa Ontario National Master Former Gov.
    Posts
    10,761
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Armstrong View Post
    Hi Kevin:

    Do you know when FIDE introduced the separate women's chess system? I'm afraid I don't exactly, but what I do know is that when I started organized chess in 1964, it seemed then to have already been around forever.

    So the purpose of the system is to encourage more women to play chess. It is my view that in 45 years the percentage of women players has increased minimally.

    If this is the case, where is the proof that the separate women's system is accomplishing anything? Everyone defends the system, and mouths the goal, but there is no proof it works.

    Women today are participating more in every aspect of life now, in areas where previously their numbers were low. So it is my contention that the increase in women in chess that we've seen would have happened anyway, WITHOUT the system.

    And if that had been the case (no separate system), women would not have been treated as second class chess player citizens. who needed diluted titles and a diluted system ( which impliedly gives them the message that they cannot play as well as men ).

    Bob A
    Bob:

    I'm not entirely defending the parellel 'system' as you call it, it's just that FIDE hasn't abandoned it, and thus I suppose the CFC, as part of its mandate, as Mark alluded to, doesn't have much choice for the time being other than aiming to sending women/girls to international women's events if we can, while these events exist. Lots of female players (not just in Canada) may in fact like it that way, in fact, as for one thing chess in regards to women alone receives funding as affordable, and so more women may be attracted to our game than might otherwise be the case - yes even for all these years. Lots of possible explanations for women being less numerous than men in competitive chess worldwide have been thought of, but no one is sure if any one explanation accounts for this (my guess is a game of chess is rather warlike, for example, if not leaving less time for social activities).

    In spite of that, there is no glass ceiling for women as chess players - they can choose to hope to do battle with only the top male players for the overall world chess championship, as Judit Polgar continues to do. We men have no such similar choice.

    For the CFC to ask to FIDE to drop the parellel 'system' at this stage would prove fruitless IMHO. It would be like Canada trying to reform the UN in some way on its own. At the UN there is the (extra?) reason for attempts at reforms concerning women to be fruitless because so many countries with arguably backward/incorrect cultures in that regard hold sway at the UN, and perhaps in other international forums.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Duncan, British Columbia CANADA
    Posts
    154

    Lightbulb OPTING OUT is a possibility but CLIENT RETENTION is important for the CFC!

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Pacey View Post
    It may be possible some women find women's only competitions at least as offensive as special titles for women. Judit Polgar refuses to play in such events, for example (not sure how strong she was when she began to hold this view).
    Opting out is certainly an option for Women players who may choose to play only in "all inclusive events" - of course.

    I was thinking that yes -- you have cited the perfect example and we can call it the "Judit Polgar exemption variation".

    But back to the masses -- the chess public, the chess girls and the chess ladies - let's give them what they want. I believe that Iulia Lacau-Rodean 's motion needs to be supported.

    I do not find this in any way "offensive" or a "reduced" or even a "devalued" title. It is a chess title created for Women to aspire to. If you build it they will come.

    We have a Women's team in the Chess Olympiad, we have a world championship women's hockey team and we have some amazing women playing chess in Canada.

    Our FIDE Rep - the esteemed Hal Bond, I.A. I.O. was the chief tournament director at the Khanty-Mansiïsk 2012 Women's World Championship where Anna Ushenina. There is a separate FIDE website for Women here: http://www.womenchessfide.com/index.php/en/

    We held the Canadian Closed in Montreal last year - http://www.chess-results.com/tnr7844...=20&turdet=YES

    The previous year at the Annex Chess Club in Toronto the event included 16 Women - most of whom have already achieved a Master's Title:

    Here are the final standings of the 2011 Canadian Women's Chess Championship (from Wikipedia):

    CAN-ch (Women) Toronto 2011 Player Rating Points
    1 Natalia Khoudgarian (CAN) 2468 5½
    2 Iulia Lacau-Rodean (CAN) 2426 4½
    3 Yelizaveta Orlova (CAN) 2321 4
    4 Jackie Peng (CAN) 2353 3½
    5 Chang Yun (CAN) 2288 3½
    6 Jiaxin Liu (CAN) 2211 3½
    7 Daniela Belc (CAN) 2218 3
    8 Qiyu Zhou (CAN) 2322 3
    9 Rebecca Giblon (CAN) 2145 3
    10 Melissa Lee (CAN) 2309 3
    11 Myriam Roy (CAN) 2217 2½
    12 Olya Chichkina (CAN) 2231 2½
    13 Melissa Giblon (CAN) 2249 2½
    14 Jessica Danti (CAN) 2139 2
    15 Rachel Tao (CAN) 2127 1
    16 Taylor Zhang (CAN) 2160 0

    Ooops -- looks like the information in the source blog and WIKI was wrong: http://goddesschess.blogspot.ca/p/20...ens-chess.html

    Let me wrap up my comments with an important marketing (my specialty in business) lesson for everyone. Think of this (The CFC and our players) as a business and now focus on how to "retain" your clients. Some very important considerations in "Customer Retention Incentives" to understand is this: In today's economic and competitive business world, retaining your existing customer base is critical to business growth and success. If you don't have a Customer Retention Strategy in place, maybe now is the time to introduce an Incentive program, as your competitors (not Chess) will offer your clients compelling introductory offers to induce them to leave. Increased customer retention drives customer satisfaction and profitability. It's a known fact that is it far less expensive to develop more sales from your existing customers than to acquire new customers. Most surveys show that keeping one existing customer is five to seven times more profitable than attracting a new one. My point is we have a captive audience - now let's reward them and make them happy and get them on-board for life - not drive them away because we don't appreciate them. As I stated earlier, we need to promote our game as per our mandate - not think up ways as to how this may not be fair or equal. Please take the time to review the current women's chess excellence on the current top 100 List from FIDE!

    Mark S. Dutton, I.A., I.O.

    Attachment 203
    Last edited by Mark S. Dutton, I.A.; 04-04-2013 at 01:31 PM. Reason: Goddesschess Blog source "credit" ???

  6. #16

    Default

    I see quite a lot of doubtul associations in this thread. It's not a matter of customer retention. Nearly all women stop after high-school, and such titles are not going to help. I've seen so many people only playing to get a title, and then quit after obtaining it (it's the case of most Canadian GMs after all!). Now, we'll only manage to lose these players even earlier.
    Also, I've seen Goddesschess mentionned earlier... This is quite surprising, as they are the first one to criticize such titles.

    I don't like the mentality of "If you do not vote for this, then you don't care about women". It's the same (lack of) arguments that we can see in the national coach thread.

    In any case, as a governor I represent the interest of Quebec players. After consulting people (including women that would be elligible for these titles), I have failed to find someone in favour or such detrimental titles.
    I'd like to quote Adam Cormier (from Chesstalk) :
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Cormier View Post
    Isn't it overly misogynistic to have separate titles for woman? There is no reason why they can't play chess as well as men, imagine if there was separate titles for people with different skin colours, imagine the outrage.

    I don't understand why more woman are not angered or at least against having separate titles it treats them like inferior chess players who have to do less work and be less good in order to be considered masters.
    Last edited by Félix Dumont; 04-03-2013 at 07:32 PM.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Ottawa Ontario National Master Former Gov.
    Posts
    10,761
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Félix Dumont View Post
    I see quite a lot of doubtul associations in this thread. It's not a matter of customer retention. Nearly all women stop after high-school, and such titles are not going to help. I've seen so many people only playing to get a title, and then quit after obtaining it (it's the case of most Canadian GMs after all!). Now, we'll only manage to lose these players even earlier.
    Also, I've seen Goddesschess mentionned earlier... This is quite surprising, as they are the first one to criticize such titles.

    I don't like the mentality of "If you do not vote for this, then you don't care about women". It's the same (lack of) arguments that we can see in the national coach thread.

    In any case, as a governor I represent the interest of Quebec players. After consulting people (including women that would be elligible for these titles), I have failed to find someone in favour or such detrimental titles.
    I'd like to quote Adam Cormier (from Chesstalk) :
    I would point out that a lot of people of either gender stop playing chess after high school, which is another 'problem' for the CFC (personally I think a better model than going all out for retention may be to look to the ACBL, i.e., at Bridge, which like the CFC in regard to chess has a given/historic turnover rate of non-renewing members each year - about 1/3 or so for the CFC historically, I've been told - and conclude we should focus most on increasing the number of new members each year).

    Regarding people playing for titles and then dropping out, perhaps it is far less rare in some parts of the country than others. In Ottawa people who become masters and remain CFC members into adulthood seem to stick around and fade away slowly, perhaps occasionally failing to renew periodically but then rejoining the CFC. Regrettably, such observation is only anecdotal. In the case of (young) Canadian GMs dropping out, they may simply face the reality that it's easier to concentrate on earning a living at something more profitable - not so much having planned all along to get the title and promptly drop out.

    There are people who argue for getting rid of any rating system (let alone any sort of titles), such as the late GM Kotov in the past, and rather more recently our own IM O'Donnell. I think we may generally agree this would not be a good idea, at least for the CFC at this time. Special titles for women may offend some and please others, and it may vary in different parts of the country (e.g. locally in Quebec, or Windsor), but I think without comprehensive data on how the majority of Canadian women/girls feel it's up to individual Governors each to decide whether to take the risk and vote for this motion. At least it does not deviate from precident so much IMO, given there are already special titles for women.

  8. #18

    Default

    This will never be a good idea unless you want to abandon Swiss pairings. The credibility of the winner produced by the Swiss system depends greatly on the accuracy of the ratings of the players. Without rating, a player with a perfect score against five 1200 players would get a better result then another player with 4/5 against 5 grandmasters. The Swiss pairing rules ensure that this ridiculous situation will never happen.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Pacey View Post
    There are people who argue for getting rid of any rating system (let alone any sort of titles), such as the late GM Kotov in the past, and rather more recently our own IM O'Donnell. I think we may generally agree this would not be a
    good idea, at least for the CFC at this time.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,709

    Default

    Do we feel we have a good grasp in our record-keeping as to the gender of our players?

    I say that as an International Arbiter who has seen his gender listed on FIDE records as female while my good friend IA Lynn Stringer listed as male. To be sure - FIDE changed it quickly when I got Hal Bond to bring it to their attention (reminds me of when FIDE kept the late Abe Yanofsky on the International Arbiter list two years after his death - they knew he was an IGM and observed his passing appropriately but had forgotten he was also an IA....)

    But the serious point is - I've checked the BC list and all the female players personally known to me are correctly listed - do we have a sense we're in good shape in knowing we've got gender correctly? I would NOT want to be the player incorrectly receiving a certificate. Similarly are these titles that are proposed to be awarded through the Office or must be applied for? What is the proposed protocol?

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    3,268
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    The protocol is the same as it is for NM or any other title. Your title gets recorded on the website. If you want a certificate you have to ask for it and for non-NMs or WNMs you have to pay a nominal $10 charge (plus HST if you live in Ontario or the provinces that have HST).

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •