LawrenceCooper wrote:I'm not sure if I'm relevant or irrelevant but I admit to some bias in this area. I like the rule and wish it still applied in Division Two. I think there is an ample pool of female players in England but they often end up registered for teams but don't get any games or they get discarded in favour of foreign imports. I want to see more girls/women playing and the 4NCL is definitely an incentive that keeps some of them playing.
Apologies to Loz, who is clearly the relevant Director. To be honest, I was thinking of the joint managers of women's chess and had promoted them.
I understand Loz's position, but I think his comments contradict it slightly. They suggest to me that the current rules aren't really satisfactory to the British women players either (who are dropped, passed around between teams, getting defaults, etc).
I'm interested in the the point "definitely an incentive". I hope he will clarify. If I should I read it as the financial contribution I wonder if it might make sense to pay women players hotel expenses out of a central pot, rather than have a women's board? (teams contributions weighted by division, starting with top woman and working down) I think it would maximise the participation of women at whatever level, and in whatever team, they found most agreeable.
I take Jonathan's point this isn't a new discussion, but reading the 2010 thread, little seems to have improved.
(EDIT: afterthought; I might mean hotel expenses of the players of the sex which is least well represented rather than women if we are being cute with equality drafting. But fundamentally I am trying to think of a different way for the 4NCL to support women's chess, since I don't think the existing one is very effective)