I'm a women and I play chess. Took about 3 or so years off playing chess. I have just gotten back into playing it consistantly for the past year. Women are very good chess players.
@sausage4mash Shtembuliak had a PERFORMANCE of 2750 (in the World Junior 2019) , his actual rating is nowhere close to that (2620, ratings.fide.com/profile/14113325)
The prizemoney you listed is also complete nonsense?! A quick google spits out that the winner of the 2019 World Youth earns $3000, so even if that had been the only event he played all year, it'd still be far beyond your purported $590.
The only thing I struggle to tell is whether you're intentionally spreading falsehoods, or just a bit stupid? In either case, not the best showing
The prizemoney you listed is also complete nonsense?! A quick google spits out that the winner of the 2019 World Youth earns $3000, so even if that had been the only event he played all year, it'd still be far beyond your purported $590.
The only thing I struggle to tell is whether you're intentionally spreading falsehoods, or just a bit stupid? In either case, not the best showing
I think also chess is perceived not only to be a boyish thing, but also nerdy. If it were perceived as something more cool, I think more and more people of all backgrounds would come on board. And that`'s our responsibility in how we sell the game.
"The only thing I struggle to tell is whether you're intentionally spreading falsehoods, or just a bit stupid? In either case, not the best showing"
well gob smacked that you pick up on such a inconsequential discrepancy , really you are quibbling about 2.5k compared to what was it 350 k lols ,then you put the little snide comment I'm either stupid or deceitful , nice work .
Any way i got my stats from chessprizes.com i suggest people look for themselves
Player 2020 ($)
1 Magnus Carlsen $519,927 std rating 2862 (hard mode)
2 Ju Wenjun $347,368 std rating 2560 (easy mode)
3 Aleksandra Goryachkina $265,345 std rating 2593 (easy mode)
4 Hikaru Nakamura $195,000 std rating 2736 (hard mode)
5 Fabiano Caruana $114,806 std rating 2823 (hard mode)
and to keep Mr pedantic happy
49 Michael Adams $7,224 std rating 2716 (hard mode)
@IsaVulpes
well gob smacked that you pick up on such a inconsequential discrepancy , really you are quibbling about 2.5k compared to what was it 350 k lols ,then you put the little snide comment I'm either stupid or deceitful , nice work .
Any way i got my stats from chessprizes.com i suggest people look for themselves
Player 2020 ($)
1 Magnus Carlsen $519,927 std rating 2862 (hard mode)
2 Ju Wenjun $347,368 std rating 2560 (easy mode)
3 Aleksandra Goryachkina $265,345 std rating 2593 (easy mode)
4 Hikaru Nakamura $195,000 std rating 2736 (hard mode)
5 Fabiano Caruana $114,806 std rating 2823 (hard mode)
and to keep Mr pedantic happy
49 Michael Adams $7,224 std rating 2716 (hard mode)
@IsaVulpes
The funny thing about this article is that the comments section proved its points. Nicely written.
Blame Fide they are the ones who made men and women different by making GM and WGM different.
The difference between WGM and GM can't explain antiquated views of women or harassment. I hold FIDE responsible for the bizarre statements of some of its representatives regarding women, but I don't blame FIDE at all for the original introduction of different titles. Whether it is a good idea to have these, I don't know, the intent certainly was good and sensible.
There was a similar article about the same topic on Chess.com.......
www.chess.com/blog/Grecescu/women-are-terrible-chess-players-theyre-just-not-so-smart
www.chess.com/blog/Grecescu/women-are-terrible-chess-players-theyre-just-not-so-smart
I watched this show and I thought it was a great show. However, I also thought that the whole "sexism" thing was mostly no existent. True, some people underestimated her, but no one ever refused anything to her because she was a girl. No one gave her a really hard time for being a girl. They also underestimated her because she was young, but as soon as she showed talent, the gender, or age thing didn't matter at all. In fact, her gender seemed to make it easier for her to make a name for herself. The extra attention wasn't even something she wanted. I'm not saying she did anything wrong, I'm just saying, in many ways, her sex actually made it easier for her. The whole gender thing was a very minor inconvenience sometimes, that was easily overcome. All of her chess allies in the movie were men, and she had many. All of her male chess allies went pretty far out of their way for her actually, to succeed both in chess, and in life. There was no real antagonist of the story, certainly not in chess. If anyone was the villain of the movie, it was her mother, who traumatized her. True, her first teacher said he didn't want to play a girl. He also said he doesn't play strangers. It was also inappropriate for him to play with any students anyway. He was also a big crank in general who would have been a bit of a dick to anyone because that was his character. The gender thing was overcome pretty easy.
She also didn't experience any of the problems that a male in her place would have. Like most young, pretty girls, attention came to her. So now that I think about it, it actually seems inappropriate to have the character in this story be a girl. Why not make it a boy? Why not explore the issues that nerdy boys would face in her position instead of inventing this character, who, in many ways, basically just played life on easy mode, navigating with God like chess talent, and having social attention given to her. Having a male protagonist makes a lot more sense, since boys are much more commonly interested in chess, and this Beth Harmon character isn't even based on a real person. Why make it female? Seems to me like her being female is actually what garnered attention, both in the story, and to the show in real life.
Rather than address "sexism in chess", I think the show highlights a different kind of sexism. The typical trope girls need to have all the attention given to them, even to the point of inventing unrealistic characters just to show that "girls can do it too". The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that the author of this story purposely made the character female, not to address sexism, but just because that makes the story an easier sell. And if it's easier to be female.... how is that sexism against females?
Having said that, I will say that one reason I love the story is because it's not just about chess, it's about life and people's relationship with chess. I just don't buy the concept that this story is about sexism, or sexism in chess. I believe the protagonist is female because less people would be interested if the protagonist was male. If that is the case, then who faces the bigger obstacles?
You know what would have REALLY made this story about sexism against women? Here's one idea.... if the protagonist was male, and he had a outsider female chess mentor. She doesn't really play against men because there's a bunch of sexism against women in the story. She's some chess genius who knows tonnes of theory, and she takes the male orphan under her wing and teaches HIM about chess and about life. That way, the story would be both about the struggles of the orphan, but also about the sexism that the female teacher faces for being female. But that doesn't really happen, ever does it? Instead we get the same old thing. A young girl in trouble, and a hoard of men who are fascinated by her, and really want to help her. Al the while, we get fed the line that this is a story of sexism against women. lol. No. If you really want to challenge ideas of gender, give the role of the leader to the female instead of "victim".
She also didn't experience any of the problems that a male in her place would have. Like most young, pretty girls, attention came to her. So now that I think about it, it actually seems inappropriate to have the character in this story be a girl. Why not make it a boy? Why not explore the issues that nerdy boys would face in her position instead of inventing this character, who, in many ways, basically just played life on easy mode, navigating with God like chess talent, and having social attention given to her. Having a male protagonist makes a lot more sense, since boys are much more commonly interested in chess, and this Beth Harmon character isn't even based on a real person. Why make it female? Seems to me like her being female is actually what garnered attention, both in the story, and to the show in real life.
Rather than address "sexism in chess", I think the show highlights a different kind of sexism. The typical trope girls need to have all the attention given to them, even to the point of inventing unrealistic characters just to show that "girls can do it too". The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that the author of this story purposely made the character female, not to address sexism, but just because that makes the story an easier sell. And if it's easier to be female.... how is that sexism against females?
Having said that, I will say that one reason I love the story is because it's not just about chess, it's about life and people's relationship with chess. I just don't buy the concept that this story is about sexism, or sexism in chess. I believe the protagonist is female because less people would be interested if the protagonist was male. If that is the case, then who faces the bigger obstacles?
You know what would have REALLY made this story about sexism against women? Here's one idea.... if the protagonist was male, and he had a outsider female chess mentor. She doesn't really play against men because there's a bunch of sexism against women in the story. She's some chess genius who knows tonnes of theory, and she takes the male orphan under her wing and teaches HIM about chess and about life. That way, the story would be both about the struggles of the orphan, but also about the sexism that the female teacher faces for being female. But that doesn't really happen, ever does it? Instead we get the same old thing. A young girl in trouble, and a hoard of men who are fascinated by her, and really want to help her. Al the while, we get fed the line that this is a story of sexism against women. lol. No. If you really want to challenge ideas of gender, give the role of the leader to the female instead of "victim".
I mean, there are people in this comment section who think women can't play chess. I'm not supporting them.
#554 Discrimination for women is still discrimination.
#549 The point is that less rated women earn more than men.
Hou Yifan (2658): $18 million
Magnus Carlsen(2862): $8 million
Sources: wealthygorilla.com/magnus-carlsen-net-worth/
networthwikinews.com/hou-yifan/#How_much_Hou_Yifans_Net_Worth (I took the median source)
#554 Discrimination for women is still discrimination.
#549 The point is that less rated women earn more than men.
Hou Yifan (2658): $18 million
Magnus Carlsen(2862): $8 million
Sources: wealthygorilla.com/magnus-carlsen-net-worth/
networthwikinews.com/hou-yifan/#How_much_Hou_Yifans_Net_Worth (I took the median source)
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.