PDA

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



Lyle Craver
04-01-2013, 11:30 AM
Drkulec - Lacau-Rodean Women's CFC titles

It is proposed that we add two new CFC titles for women and girls. The titles are Woman National Master and Woman National Candidate Master. The requirements for the Woman National Master title would be the same as the current requirements for the current National Candidate Master title which are three performances in tournaments of at least five games at 2100 or higher or attaining a CFC rating of 2100.

The requirements for the Woman Candidate Master title would be the same as the requirements for the current Class A title which require three performances in tournaments of at least five games at 1900 or attaining a CFC rating of 1900.

This is the current usual cutoff range for qualification for the Canadian woman's Olympiad team. The hope is that this would encourage more women and girls to continue to participate in chess for a longer period of time and also to give recognition to the women and girls who have attained this level of performance in Canadian chess.

Currently in Canada we do not have the level of female representation in chess tournaments and CFC membership that are seen in the United States. My observations in Windsor are that the level of chess interest in girls is about the same as that of boys but over time they become discouraged from playing by the observation that there are few other girls playing. It is hoped by making the top Canadian women more visible by offering this recognition that girls will continue playing chess in an effort to attain the additional titles and achieve similar recognition as the top titles.

Initially I thought to offer intermediate titles which would require norms in the 2200 level range for the WNM title and 2000 range for the WNCM title but after consultations with my co-sponsor and with governors have amended the levels to where they are attainable by Canada's top women and girls. Once the WNM title was set it made sense to make the WNCM title levels two hundred points below the higher title to be consistent with all of our other titles. For the most part implementation of this would merely require editing the web page that currently lists the NCM title holders to include the title Woman National Master and the web page that currently lists the class A titled players to include the Woman National Canadidate Master title. Women that wish a printed certificate could ask for one for the usual charge with the Women's National Master title certificate being offered for free as is the usual practice for the National Master title.

Gordon Ritchie
04-02-2013, 05:50 PM
Am I correct and understanding that Vlad and Julia are proposing simply inflating the Canadian titles for women/girls by one notch, i.e. a WNCM would become a WNM and a women's Class A would become a WNCM. Has anyone surveyed female players to see if they would support this title inflation?

Vladimir Drkulec
04-02-2013, 08:10 PM
Am I correct and understanding that Vlad and Julia are proposing simply inflating the Canadian titles for women/girls by one notch, i.e. a WNCM would become a WNM and a women's Class A would become a WNCM. Has anyone surveyed female players to see if they would support this title inflation?

When I started this at the prompting of an two time women's Olympiad team member my initial idea was to provide an intermediate title which fell in between NCM and NM titles. After discussion with governors, and female players including the women's coordinator it was determined that the bar was set a bit too high under my proposed title, given the precedent of FIDE having women's titles with a 200 point difference with the corresponding regular titles. Every female player or female player's parent that I have discussed this idea with has been in favour. Of course the people who I consulted were for the most part Windsor players where we don't have as much of a gender gap as other parts of Canada.

I would really like to see chess just as popular among girls and women as it is among boys and men in Canada. In Windsor for a few years it seems to me that it starts out that way but over time the girls stop playing and it is not because they aren't as good as the boys. In Detroit and Michigan I see a larger percentage of female players than I see in Ontario (aside from Windsor). In Europe and South America there seem to be more female players on a proportional basis.

There are criticisms that the female players might just obtain the titles and then quit but if that is the case then at least they might play a little longer before they obtain the title and the ten and fourteen year old girls will see them and think that chess is something that girls can do and compete with boys on a somewhat equal footing and maybe they will play a little longer.

John Coleman makes a joke about the Riverside Library Chess Club which is the only adult chess club in Windsor. He says that its a club for grumpy old retired men. Given my discussions with women and girls it seems to me that this measure would offer some encouragement to our stronger women to continue to play. If you want to keep this as the bastion of the grumpy old men then by all means do so but don't be surprised if the young ladies all disappear into the activities and pursuits where they are welcomed.

Félix Dumont
04-02-2013, 08:52 PM
I will vote against this motion. I talked with some of the strongest women in Quebec, and they don't want to be treated as inferior to men.

As I said on Chesstalk :
Some literally feel insulted of such titles (to quote one : " Only because we are women, we need to do less efforts to have a title? What is the rational behind this?")
When I organized the Women Championship last year, I discussed of the titles with several people, including the sponsors (Goddesschess). The general opinion is that different titles actually increase the barrier between men and women.

Goddesschess also wrote at several occasions on this (one example : http://goddesschess.blogspot.ca/2012/11/again-question-why-separate-womens.html)

Christopher Mallon
04-02-2013, 08:57 PM
Vlad,

Your post hints strongly but doesn't really make a case that even one single girl would stay in chess due to the existence of these titles. And you admit you've mainly talked to only Windsor chess players.

I've argued for years against FIDE's gradual devaluation of their titles. The lower level ones (CM/WCM) aren't even "real" titles, mainly they are money grabs as far as FIDE is concerned. I don't understand why we want to bring this to Canada and I will never consider anyone who's not been above 2200 to be a master. 2200 has been the requisite to be considered a master for a long time, and it has become easier, not harder, to achieve in the modern ratings system.

So I can't support this.

Egidijus Zeromskis
04-02-2013, 09:57 PM
Can movers BOLD the motion - what and where will be added in the Handbook? Right now it sounds only like an intention.

Mark S. Dutton, I.A.
04-02-2013, 10:03 PM
Just to play "devils advocate" I would like to speak in support of this motion to promote women's participation and "reward" in Canada.

In BC over the last few years at the Grand Pacific Open, we have had a number of "official" sponsors including "Goddess Chess" who donate $300 each year on the condition that the prize money be distributed to the top 5 women players in the event. "Top Women $80, $70, $60, $50, $40 (in addition to any other prize Courtesy of Goddess Chess)" is what is stated on our website and flyers. Is this a "fair" policy to all players - well probably not. Is it good for chess in Canada - absolutely!

FYI -- we have enjoyed an increase in attendance of women players. This year about 10% of our entries were women. I wonder if we have national stats on the typical tournament average participation of women? (is it less than 10% -- I would think so) In British Columbia, the numbers are on the increase! The point is anything that helps us, the CFC, to complete our mandate to "promote and encourage the knowledge, study and play of the game of chess in Canada" is good! Here is the final result from this year: Top Women (Courtesy of Goddess Chess) 1st: $80 WGM Katerina Rohonyan, 2nd-3rd $65 each: WFM Chouchanik Airapetian, Becca Lampman 4th-5th: $45 each Alice Huanyi Xiao and Joanne Foote.

The winner of the GPO from 2011 was WGM Nino Maisuradze! This year we had WGM Katerina Rohonyan give the winner Jack Yoos a run for his money.

We, at the CFC, need to promote and retain women's memberships too! This is a good motion by the Women's Coordinator Iulia Lacau-Rodean and I am voicing my support of this motion.

199

200

Thanks to Douglas Bain of Bluegiraffe Photography - Our Official Photographer's Photos: http://bluegiraffephoto.zenfolio.com/grandpacificopen



Drkulec - Lacau-Rodean Women's CFC titles

It is proposed that we add two new CFC titles for women and girls. The titles are Woman National Master and Woman National Candidate Master. The requirements for the Woman National Master title would be the same as the current requirements for the current National Candidate Master title which are three performances in tournaments of at least five games at 2100 or higher or attaining a CFC rating of 2100.

The requirements for the Woman Candidate Master title would be the same as the requirements for the current Class A title which require three performances in tournaments of at least five games at 1900 or attaining a CFC rating of 1900.

This is the current usual cutoff range for qualification for the Canadian woman's Olympiad team. The hope is that this would encourage more women and girls to continue to participate in chess for a longer period of time and also to give recognition to the women and girls who have attained this level of performance in Canadian chess.

Currently in Canada we do not have the level of female representation in chess tournaments and CFC membership that are seen in the United States. My observations in Windsor are that the level of chess interest in girls is about the same as that of boys but over time they become discouraged from playing by the observation that there are few other girls playing. It is hoped by making the top Canadian women more visible by offering this recognition that girls will continue playing chess in an effort to attain the additional titles and achieve similar recognition as the top titles.

Initially I thought to offer intermediate titles which would require norms in the 2200 level range for the WNM title and 2000 range for the WNCM title but after consultations with my co-sponsor and with governors have amended the levels to where they are attainable by Canada's top women and girls. Once the WNM title was set it made sense to make the WNCM title levels two hundred points below the higher title to be consistent with all of our other titles. For the most part implementation of this would merely require editing the web page that currently lists the NCM title holders to include the title Woman National Master and the web page that currently lists the class A titled players to include the Woman National Canadidate Master title. Women that wish a printed certificate could ask for one for the usual charge with the Women's National Master title certificate being offered for free as is the usual practice for the National Master title.

Pierre Dénommée
04-02-2013, 11:53 PM
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.

Bob Armstrong
04-03-2013, 01:48 AM
Just to play "devils advocate" I would like to speak in support of this motion to promote women's participation and "reward" in Canada.

In BC over the last few years at the Grand Pacific Open, we have had a number of "official" sponsors including "Goddess Chess" who donate $300 each year on the condition that the prize money be distributed to the top 5 women players in the event. "Top Women $80, $70, $60, $50, $40 (in addition to any other prize Courtesy of Goddess Chess)" is what is stated on our website and flyers. Is this a "fair" policy to all players - well probably not. Is it good for chess in Canada - absolutely!

FYI -- we have enjoyed an increase in attendance of women players. This year about 10% of our entries were women. I wonder if we have national stats on the typical tournament average participation of women? (is it less than 10% -- I would think so) In British Columbia, the numbers are on the increase! The point is anything that helps us, the CFC, to complete our mandate to "promote and encourage the knowledge, study and play of the game of chess in Canada" is good! Here is the final result from this year: Top Women (Courtesy of Goddess Chess) 1st: $80 WGM Katerina Rohonyan, 2nd-3rd $65 each: WFM Chouchanik Airapetian, Becca Lampman 4th-5th: $45 each Alice Huanyi Xiao and Joanne Foote.

The winner of the GPO from 2011 was WGM Nino Maisuradze! This year we had WGM Katerina Rohonyan give the winner Jack Yoos a run for his money.

We, at the CFC, need to promote and retain women's memberships too! This is a good motion by the Women's Coordinator Iulia Lacau-Rodean and I am voicing my support of this motion.

199

200

Thanks to Douglas Bain of Bluegiraffe Photography - Our Official Photographer's Photos: http://bluegiraffephoto.zenfolio.com/grandpacificopen

As many of you know, I think the current separate women's parallel system is in fact now detrimental to women's chess, and is retarding its progress. I would abolish the whole separate rating system, and women's titles. However, in my attempts to discuss this option, I have been amazingly, to me, alone.

So given that the separate system exists, I do not understand the women players complaining about "cheap" titles. The whole system is "cheap". The Women's World Championship system is patently inferior to the World Chess Championship cycle.

But the argument is that it is needed to attract/keep women in chess, even if it is by diluted titles. Since we have diluted titles already, and a diluted system, it seems to me that the extension of diluted titles, as in this motion, complies with the whole logic behind this system.

Why would you not create low level targets as "rewards" if you believe it attracts/keeps women players. If that is right, then by all means the motion should pass.

But I personally will abstain, because I don't believe in the whole separate system, and so, on some occasions, like this, I decide not to participate in tinkering with it. I'll let those who believe in the system decide what "improves" it.

Bob A

Kevin Pacey
04-03-2013, 02:44 PM
As many of you know, I think the current separate women's parallel system is in fact now detrimental to women's chess, and is retarding its progress. I would abolish the whole separate rating system, and women's titles. However, in my attempts to discuss this option, I have been amazingly, to me, alone.

So given that the separate system exists, I do not understand the women players complaining about "cheap" titles. The whole system is "cheap". The Women's World Championship system is patently inferior to the World Chess Championship cycle.

But the argument is that it is needed to attract/keep women in chess, even if it is by diluted titles. Since we have diluted titles already, and a diluted system, it seems to me that the extension of diluted titles, as in this motion, complies with the whole logic behind this system.

Why would you not create low level targets as "rewards" if you believe it attracts/keeps women players. If that is right, then by all means the motion should pass.

But I personally will abstain, because I don't believe in the whole separate system, and so, on some occasions, like this, I decide not to participate in tinkering with it. I'll let those who believe in the system decide what "improves" it.

Bob A

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.

Kevin Pacey
04-03-2013, 03:10 PM
...
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.

Kevin Pacey
04-03-2013, 03:17 PM
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).

Bob Armstrong
04-03-2013, 05:02 PM
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

Kevin Pacey
04-03-2013, 06:27 PM
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.

Mark S. Dutton, I.A.
04-03-2013, 07:17 PM
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 (http://www.womenchessfide.com/index.php/en/) here: http://www.womenchessfide.com/index.php/en/

We held the Canadian Closed in Montreal last year - http://www.chess-results.com/tnr78448.aspx?ix=1&lan=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) (http://goddesschess.blogspot.ca/p/2012-goddesschess-canadian-womens-chess.html):

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/2012-goddesschess-canadian-womens-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 (http://www.womenchessfide.com/index.php/en/women/top-100/1305-top-100-women-march-2013) excellence on the current top 100 List from FIDE (http://www.womenchessfide.com/index.php/en/women/top-100/1305-top-100-women-march-2013)!

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

203

Félix Dumont
04-03-2013, 07:29 PM
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) :


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.

Kevin Pacey
04-03-2013, 08:31 PM
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.

Pierre Dénommée
04-03-2013, 10:54 PM
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.


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.

Lyle Craver
04-04-2013, 12:48 AM
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?

Vladimir Drkulec
04-04-2013, 01:12 AM
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).

Bob Gillanders
04-04-2013, 10:55 AM
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.


Hi Bob, I've been watching this debate with interest while working out the final details for the Ontario Girls Chess Championship. I hope we can all agree that more women playing chess is desirable. So instead of "throwing in the towel", maybe we should be doubling our efforts.

Kevin Pacey
04-04-2013, 11:56 AM
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.

Personally I think more knockout or round-robin style events would be good for chess, as exciting a format as I think they are. These formats do have drawbacks compared to swisses (or sectional RRs, i.e. Congresses), which do seem to require a rating system as you allude to - at least Kotov never addressed the concern about swiss pairings without ratings being used that you've expressed, Pierre. I can't recall if Tom ever did either.

Vladimir Drkulec
04-04-2013, 12:42 PM
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.


No one will require anyone who finds the title detrimental to apply for it. If you don't like it you have the option of simply taking the class A title and the National Candidate master title. This was not exactly what I initially envisioned but what evolved after discussions with two recent women's Olympiad team members including Iulia who was after all the women's coordinator and the input of the governors when I brought up this idea initially on the governor's board. A post on Chesstalk by Andrei Botez who I believe has at least two daughters in chess indicates "If this title is achieved before a certain age, I can tell you for sure that all the players are more then happy." This would indicate to me that there is some support among three recent women's Olympiad team members.

As I recall the vote was a healthy majority for accepting Iulia as CFC women's coordinator. Why go through the pretense of having a women's coordinator if you aren't going to listen to her suggestions? There is a perception that this chess federation is an old boy's club. Much of the discussion around this issue here and on chess talk reinforces that perception.

Further to the idea that Windsor girls are unrepresentative of Canadian girls in general the fact is that among the most active chess players we usually have a participation of 40% to 50% girls. We had a tournament this year where it seemed to me at least 400 girls out of 1000 kids competed and last year the number was somewhere between 600 and 700 out of 1400 kids. If that is an anomaly it is an anomaly that the CFC should pay attention to. This year's lowered numbers were the result of the public schools not taking part due to the teacher's refusal to participate in extracurricular activities as part of an argument over Ontario government legislation they disagree with which infringes on their collective agreements with the government.

As our president, Mark Dutton has pointed out we really need to take more of a marketing approach. If we can keep a few of our best woman players playing for a little longer and give them an endorsement that they can use when they are teaching chess to other girls (and boys) then maybe they stay in chess a little longer and we get more girls who stay in chess because they have these visible examples and role models that tell them that it is normal for young women to play chess, to succeed and achieve recognition.

For the CFC to implement this would require some minor modifications to the html of the pages which display titles. You don't even necessarily have to list their names separately though it would be nice if that were possible. In addition there is some slight addition to the duties of the CFC office. In some cases they will have to type in Woman National Master instead of National Candidate Master in the body of the certificate. In discussions Michael Von Keitz was very much in favour of this initiative when he was CFC President so I am sure he will accommodate this minor variation to his duties.

Bob Armstrong
04-04-2013, 12:47 PM
Hi Bob G:

I am not "throwing in the towel" on women's participation in chess!!

I am a strong supporter of greater women participation, as in the Scarborough CC where we have probably 10 % women participation ( a high rate in Canada, I believe) ---- in the "open" Thursday night swisses. Women are treated totally equally, as they should.

I agree to making significant efforts to get women participating in general areas where they have not been, or where participation has been prevented.

This includes significant efforts by the chess community to have women play/continue to play chess.....in the open system.

I do not believe the separate system is helping. In fact, I think it is inhibiting. It sends an implied message of inferiority. The separate women's system has been around for a very long time, and no one has any scientific proof that it has helped at all. I am not aware of any significant study that proves the value of the separate women's system! Any rise in women's chess participation is due to generally better participation of women in all aspects of life.

That said, I do wish the best to you and all those using the separate system to try to promote women's chess. All effort is helpful.

Bob A

Ken Craft
04-04-2013, 01:40 PM
I'll be supporting the Women's coordinator's recommendation.

Pierre Dénommée
04-04-2013, 02:48 PM
The problem with knockouts is that a drawn game is the result of a well fought game. We have no efficient way to remove those drawn results. Tiebreak with blitz are not truly significant. Almost nobody knows the name of the IM who has a 2920 FIDE blitz rating. There is obviously no proof the the better blitz player is the better player at standard chess.


Personally I think more knockout or round-robin style events would be good for chess, as exciting a format as I think they are. These formats do have drawbacks compared to swisses (or sectional RRs, i.e. Congresses), which do seem to require a rating system as you allude to - at least Kotov never addressed the concern about swiss pairings without ratings being used that you've expressed, Pierre. I can't recall if Tom ever did either.

Vladimir Drkulec
04-04-2013, 03:12 PM
Vlad,

Your post hints strongly but doesn't really make a case that even one single girl would stay in chess due to the existence of these titles. And you admit you've mainly talked to only Windsor chess players.



My interest in this idea came from an enquiry from Liza Orlova who recently had an excellent tournament result after a long absence from CFC chess. She asked about the title which does not currently exist. I talked to our President Michael Von Keitz who liked the idea and referred me to Iulia, the CFC women's coordinator and those discussions led to something close to the current proposal. Finally I talked to the governors on the governors forum which led to this current version of the motion. I talked to a number of Windsor girls and all were quite positive about the idea once it was clarified that the new titles were not required and they could go with the old titles. You might argue that the Windsor girls are somehow not representative of Canada as a whole but the fact is if you had the same proportional participation from the rest of Canadian youth at the last CYCC as you had from Windsor then you would have had more than 2000 kids playing in the tournament.

I reject the idea that the Windsor girls or kids in general are all that unique. If the CFC governors did the same things that we are doing in Windsor, I have little doubt that we would have similar results all across Canada. The real target of this motion, is an indirect target and that is the eight or ten or twelve or fourteen year old girl that likes to play chess but doesn't have too many role models. I know that this will keep the Windsor girls playing longer and that in turn will encourage more girls to start to play and to start to put effort into and excel at chess because they see the example of the older girls and aspire to enjoy their same success competing against boys and adults. They want the certificates and trophies and ribbons that these girls have shown, by their example, that they too could earn.

I don't have any peer reviewed studies that would support my belief that this will help. I do have many years of chess teaching and coaching experience in one area of the country where chess is enjoying exploding interest among girls (and boys). If they tell me that they view this positively, I suspect that there is a large pool of potential players who are very similar in psychological makeup and motivation across the country who will also view this positively.

When I first got involved with the CFC as a governor there were comments among some influential individuals that I was wasting my time and that the CFC was a bastion of stodgy, time and money wasting governors, where nothing would ever change, and no progress could ever be made. Lets prove them wrong. We need to widen our appeal. This will widen our appeal. Lets do it.

Paul Leblanc
04-04-2013, 04:08 PM
I also would tend to defer to the women's coordinator and support her recommendation.

Hal Bond
04-04-2013, 05:54 PM
I support this initiative. It's good for women's chess. There is no cost, so it helps the whole community without canibalizing something else.

Christopher Mallon
04-04-2013, 06:51 PM
There is no cost,

No monetary cost perhaps. But it does further devalue the title of "Master".

Félix Dumont
04-04-2013, 07:43 PM
No monetary cost perhaps. But it does further devalue the title of "Master".

I agree... Especially considering the current rating inflation.

Vladimir Drkulec
04-04-2013, 09:54 PM
From: Iulia Lacau-Rodean This sender is in your contact list.
Sent: April-04-13 7:26:06 PM
To: Vladimir Drkulec
Thank you for defending the motion on my behalf as well. I wasn't sure what the protocol was, whether as initiator you do get to participate in the debate or not. I did see you have couple of posts. Maybe I should comment something. I am quite outraged by some of the posts. This is why I haven't really posted anything on chess forums and stopped reading them for a while. Maybe I am not tough enough to deal with some of the harsh criticisms, esp having to refute people's views of how this motion would devalue the master's title, how it adds to the glass ceiling etc. What do they know about the chess glass ceiling anyways? None of the other governors have been stuck underneath it. Most of the girls I've spoken to all over the world have no problem competing in women's only events and obtaining titles for them. Lots of other sports are segregated by gender. As you said, if some women would be offended by the title, do not accept it.

I do urge that this motion be approved, it will be a great motivator for women in chess. How many active women are currently over 2100 CFC and less than 2200 CFC? Perhaps 3. 3 out of 100 women on the active list. That is 3%. What is so wrong with having another handful of women striving to achieve that goal (of the ones over 2000 CFC) and another perhaps 10 that are currently over 1900? How can anyone think it's detrimental to women's Canadian chess?

I am stumped.

Again, thanks for your time and effort put into this motion. Feel free to quote part or all of this on the forum.

Best wishes,
Iulia Lacau-Rodean
Women's Coordinator
Canadian Chess Federation

Sent from my iPhone

Fred McKim
04-05-2013, 08:32 AM
From: Iulia Lacau-Rodean This sender is in your contact list.
Sent: April-04-13 7:26:06 PM
To: Vladimir Drkulec
Thank you for defending the motion on my behalf as well. I wasn't sure what the protocol was, whether as initiator you do get to participate in the debate or not. I did see you have couple of posts. Maybe I should comment something. I am quite outraged by some of the posts. This is why I haven't really posted anything on chess forums and stopped reading them for a while. Maybe I am not tough enough to deal with some of the harsh criticisms, esp having to refute people's views of how this motion would devalue the master's title, how it adds to the glass ceiling etc. What do they know about the chess glass ceiling anyways? None of the other governors have been stuck underneath it. Most of the girls I've spoken to all over the world have no problem competing in women's only events and obtaining titles for them. Lots of other sports are segregated by gender. As you said, if some women would be offended by the title, do not accept it.

I do urge that this motion be approved, it will be a great motivator for women in chess. How many active women are currently over 2100 CFC and less than 2200 CFC? Perhaps 3. 3 out of 100 women on the active list. That is 3%. What is so wrong with having another handful of women striving to achieve that goal (of the ones over 2000 CFC) and another perhaps 10 that are currently over 1900? How can anyone think it's detrimental to women's Canadian chess?

I am stumped.

Again, thanks for your time and effort put into this motion. Feel free to quote part or all of this on the forum.

Best wishes,
Iulia Lacau-Rodean
Women's Coordinator
Canadian Chess Federation

Sent from my iPhone

It's good to hear from you on this, Iulia.

I believe this thread should have been closed once the poll was put up on the site - so maybe we can just let her have the last word !!

Pierre Dénommée
04-05-2013, 01:20 PM
I do not see the need for Women titles, but I will trust the Women's Coordinator.

Christopher Mallon
04-05-2013, 05:12 PM
I believe this thread should have been closed once the poll was put up on the site - so maybe we can just let her have the last word !!

We've never done that before, why would we start now?

Bob Armstrong
04-05-2013, 06:35 PM
Regardless of prior practice, I think that "closing" should be the practice - like no campaigning once the voting starts. The voters should be left alone to figure out their vote once the voting starts - no more debate propaganda to try to influence them. Close all the motion discussion threads once voting starts.

Those that want to continue the discussion can go to the Governors' Discussion Board.

My 2 cents.

Bob A

Kevin Pacey
04-05-2013, 07:32 PM
Regardless of prior practice, I think that "closing" should be the practice - like no campaigning once the voting starts. The voters should be left alone to figure out their vote once the voting starts - no more debate propaganda to try to influence them. Close all the motion discussion threads once voting starts.

Those that want to continue the discussion can go to the Governors' Discussion Board.

My 2 cents.

Bob A

In that case any "campaigning" merely moves to the Governors' Discussion Board (or other message board forums, or emails, phone calls...). It might reduce the number of votes swayed late, due to the general(?) tendency of people not to go out of their way much.

Kevin Pacey
04-05-2013, 07:35 PM
Fred McKim: I believe this thread should have been closed once the poll was put up on the site - so maybe we can just let her have the last word !!


We've never done that before, why would we start now?

Some might argue this thread sometimes has not been for the faint of heart.

Bob Armstrong
04-05-2013, 08:26 PM
Hi Kevin:

Agreed - the discussions can go on elsewhere. That's OK.

What's not OK is having them posted here, where the voting booth is.

And I think you are correct that late voters likely will generally not go elsewhere - just be coming here to vote.

Bob A