Director of Women's Chess

[Michael Farthing]

I suspect those who propose setting down rules for potential sponsors have had little experience actually negotiating with them. Actually, there are two kinds of sponsors - one, the sponsor who pretty much knows what type of activity it wants to sponsor and, two, the sponsor who doesn't and is therefore open to suggestions. But let's take an example of the first type - a manufacturer/retailer of women's sanitary products. The vast majority of users are, surprisingly, women so it wishes to attract the attention of women rather than men. Such a sponsor might very logically wish to support a women's team but not a men's team. Presumably a significant number of posters here would turn down this proposal on the grounds that it discriminates? Obviously that's an extreme example (I could have reversed it by choosing a male-orientated product) but I give it to illustrate my point.

Well I wouldn't.
I thought the argument being put forward was that sponsors should be refused if they didn't want to discriminate?

[NickFaulks]

The stated aim was to target FIDE titles of GM, WGM, IM, WIM, FM, WFM.

If boys are accepted on the basis that they are moving towards the FM title and girls the WFM title, I feel that should be sufficient equality. It is of course disappointing that so few girls fall into this category, a problem which should be remedied through the regular Junior program, but pitching them into an elite program just make no sense.

[JustinHorton]

Obviously that's an extreme example (I could have reversed it by choosing a male-orientated product) but I give it to illustrate my point.

Do we have a lot of experience of sponsors only wanting to sponsor women's teams?

[Roger Lancaster]

Obviously that's an extreme example (I could have reversed it by choosing a male-orientated product) but I give it to illustrate my point.

Do we have a lot of experience of sponsors only wanting to sponsor women's teams?

Possibly not and possibly for the reason we don't look for them. But, Justin, work it out for yourself - there are numerous companies looking to market themselves to women rather than men and one way of doing this is through sponsoring women's events.

[NickFaulks]

Do we have a lot of experience of sponsors only wanting to sponsor women's teams?

Do we have any sponsors at all?

[Roger Lancaster]

Do we have a lot of experience of sponsors only wanting to sponsor women's teams?

Do we have any sponsors at all?

My experience of seeking sponsors is around 20 years out of date so what follows may be altered somewhat by the widespread subsequent emergence of social media. However, at that point, major sponsors (other than those with a purely altruistic motive who were unconcerned with publicity outcomes) were very heavily influenced by what television coverage an event might be able to attract - that represented a swing away from newspaper coverage which, 20 years earlier still, might have been the key issue. Chess suffers from the disadvantage that, as a rule, events can't be guaranteed (or even semi-guaranteed, if you accept the existence of such a concept) to generate much media, and particularly TV, coverage. So you probably shouldn't be too hard on those within the ECF charged with obtaining sponsorship - it's an uphill task.

[Roger Lancaster]

Moving away from the sponsorship issue, relevant though this is, there's the separate question of women and chess clubs. Many women do not find that chess clubs have a particularly inviting atmosphere - there's an interesting contrast with bridge clubs which are much more successful at attracting and keeping women. Discuss and compare, as my old Latin master used to say.

[Andrew Zigmond]

Unfortunately this debate keeps coming back to the demand from Casual Chess

Having searched this forum for the word Casual, I get the impression it's mostly being brought back by yourself, Andrew.

On this forum, maybe. However the demand (and the ECF declining it) is mentioned on the GoFundMe page and also the articles that have found their way into the mainstream media. Amanda Ross seems to be (not unreasonably) seeking exposure for her new Women's Chess Fund and `national body declines request for funding` makes good copy, even if it is completely removed from context. So does `male director appointed for woman's job` in which case she ought to be grateful to the ECF for playing into her hands.

[Andrew Zigmond]

Moving away from the sponsorship issue, relevant though this is, there's the separate question of women and chess clubs. Many women do not find that chess clubs have a particularly inviting atmosphere - there's an interesting contrast with bridge clubs which are much more successful at attracting and keeping women. Discuss and compare, as my old Latin master used to say.

Which is very true. But perhaps equally true for juniors or younger players (of both genders).

[Brian Towers]

Chess suffers from the disadvantage that, as a rule, events can't be guaranteed (or even semi-guaranteed, if you accept the existence of such a concept) to generate much media, and particularly TV, coverage. So you probably shouldn't be too hard on those within the ECF charged with obtaining sponsorship - it's an uphill task.

Sounds like a good argument for trying to get the woman from "Casual Chess" (sorry, can't remember her name) more involved in the ECF. She seems to be very good at getting publicity. Perhaps it's a shame she was snubbed.

[JustinHorton]

Obviously that's an extreme example (I could have reversed it by choosing a male-orientated product) but I give it to illustrate my point.

Do we have a lot of experience of sponsors only wanting to sponsor women's teams?

Possibly not and possibly for the reason we don't look for them. But, Justin, work it out for yourself - there are numerous companies looking to market themselves to women rather than men and one way of doing this is through sponsoring women's events.

Plausibly Roger but the trouble is that a trope of these discussions is the production of, to use your term, extreme examples. We're talking about practical ways to address actually-existing problems and I'm not sure that envisaging an imaginary sponsorship bid by Acme Tampons necessarily takes us forward here.

[Andrew Martin]

I think the new Director has two priorities above everything else.

Firstly, to work with the Junior Director to get a suitable manager of Girls Chess in place. It is quite extraordinary that there is a vacancy in that department. Perhaps a suitable female candidate will step forward?


https://www.englishchess.org.uk/about/vacancies/

Evidence that there is a chronic need to fill that post:


https://en.chessbase.com/post/a-male-dominated-game

Then , secondly, to work out a way of keeping all these girls playing as they move into late teens and beyond.


The ECF Academy actually has plenty of girls signed up and those numbers are increasing. I invite all strong female coaches to contact me to work at the training weekends , as I am very keen
to boost their number.


There are initiatives taking place, there are people making an effort to increase female participation.

[NickFaulks]

Which is very true. But perhaps equally true for juniors or younger players (of both genders).

And any other prospective new members. When they walk in, they find a lot of people playing serious games and you're not supposed to talk even if there's somebody to talk to. In my experience club members are more willing to leave their games in order to be welcoming towards women or juniors, but there's only so much you can do.

[Roger Lancaster]

Moving away from the sponsorship issue, relevant though this is, there's the separate question of women and chess clubs. Many women do not find that chess clubs have a particularly inviting atmosphere - there's an interesting contrast with bridge clubs which are much more successful at attracting and keeping women. Discuss and compare, as my old Latin master used to say.

Which is very true. But perhaps equally true for juniors or younger players (of both genders).

Perhaps - although this may vary in different parts of the country. Taking north London and its immediate environs, there are several clubs which are either exclusively junior clubs or junior-friendly. In the latter group, for example, is my own club with 30 adults but 44 juniors - although Andrew Martin, whose post I have just read, will be disappointed that only 7 or 8 are girls. Although there's a minority of adults who dislike playing with children, by and large my experience is that the two can co-exist quite comfortably.

[Andrew Zigmond]

I should perhaps clarify that there is a difference between clubs where women/ juniors/ younger players are actively made unwelcome and those where they inevitably end up feeling unwelcome by virtue of being the only one. For juniors, dedicated clubs have proved an obvious, and successful, solution (with the advantage that it is considerably easier to set the ball rolling with juniors than it is with adult minorities).