Director of Women's Chess

[JustinHorton]

Doesn't the sponsor get a say?

No, that's the point. The sponsor doesn't get to downgrade the role and participation of women.

[Roger de Coverly]

Re tournaments and prizes, I thought that happened now. What more is needed?

I though of an immensely double edged piece of positive discrimination which builds on what already exists.

In absolute rating terms, the standard for automatic qualification for the British Championships is lower for women than males. Internationally as well, the standard for female only titles is lower.

But what if you applied a positive discrimination principle to rated tournaments? You run say an under 2050 tournament and an under 1800 tournament, but female players up to 2200 and 1950 are allowed to take part. The double edged part is what happens if they don't win?

[Roger de Coverly]

The sponsor doesn't get to downgrade the role and participation of women.

Is it still commonplace in sports, for sponsors to support the open team, the female team or perhaps both? They are allowed to do this without being shouted at for downgrading the participation of women if they choose to only sponsor the open/male team.

[JustinHorton]

They are allowed to do this without being shouted at for downgrading the participation of women

Y'know it's the downgrading here that I have the greater problem with

[NickFaulks]

Doesn't the sponsor get a say?

No, that's the point.

That is a principled position, for which you may commended, but not everyone will be so sanguine about turning sponsors away.

[JustinHorton]

I'm sure they won't, but either we mean it or we don't.

[Andrew Zigmond]

Air out all the crap that women have to go through.

Let's do that. I for one would genuinely like to know what this crap is.

I would also be interested to know, although I wouldn't have phrased it so sarcastically. I'm fairly confident that there are pockets of misogyny within English chess where any female player wishing to get involved would either not be made welcome or, worse, be actively discouraged. This needs calling out although there's only so much that can be done to stamp it out.

Doesn't the sponsor get a say?

No, that's the point. The sponsor doesn't get to downgrade the role and participation of women.

The sponsor may only wish to be involved with the Open team and this is more likely to be due to lack of funds to cover both, rather than a refusal to be involved with the women's team. HOWEVER there may well be organisations interested in sponsoring the women's team and only the women's team.

Unfortunately this debate keeps coming back to the demand from Casual Chess that they receive a substantial amount of funding for only vaguely specified purposes and why they should get this over and above (as a veteran ECF figure noted in the Casual Chess thread) organisations that have been doing good work for many years without ever receiving, or asking for, a penny from the ECF. Including initiatives that have sought to promote chess for women.

Which takes me on to my next point, that the proposed Women's Chess Fund is actually an excellent idea and will actually allow them to direct their activities better than an ECF grant would.

I'm generally in favour of positive discrimination but there is an elephant in the room, namely that if the age demographic problem isn't tackled as well there may not be many male chess players left to positively discriminate against.

[Chris Rice]

Air out all the crap that women have to go through.

Let's do that. I for one would genuinely like to know what this crap is.

I would also be interested to know, although I wouldn't have phrased it so sarcastically. I'm fairly confident that there are pockets of misogyny within English chess where any female player wishing to get involved would either not be made welcome or, worse, be actively discouraged. This needs calling out although there's only so much that can be done to stamp it out.

Jovanka's had more to say on that FB thread:

"....Its 10 boys being chosen for an elite program with perhaps one token girl - with the girls being written off because they are lower rated. When a woman wins a woman's championship- she has to start defending the existence of those prizes to others... Fighting with chess federations to get funding for the women's team, captain etc. Being consistently told that sponsors are not interested in sponsoring the women's chess team. Official team sponsorship pictures only containing photos of the Open team... I remember one year, a friend was so fed up with her federation saying that they had no money for a women's captain that she crowdfunded for money. The federation quickly found some money after that public embarrassment. Recently chess legend Pia Cramling announced she would not be playing for the Swedish Olympic team after the federation had chosen a captain that the team did not support."

[NickFaulks]

I would also be interested to know, although I wouldn't have phrased it so sarcastically.

There was no sarcasm. As usual, I meant precisely what I wrote.

[JustinHorton]

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.

[NickFaulks]

"....Its 10 boys being chosen for an elite program with perhaps one token girl

Is that the case? I know nothing about the ECF's elite program except that it exists.

[Roger de Coverly]

Is that the case?

This report is a year out of date, but it does support the hypothesis.

The stated aim was to target FIDE titles of GM, WGM, IM, WIM, FM, WFM. Perhaps that brings it back to the start, that potential candidates for WFM, WIM and WGM are in short supply, let alone FM and IM.
https://www.englishchess.org.uk/Juniors ... s-2016-17/

It was fifteen to twenty five years ago, that we had a trio of female players who gained IM titles, equalling or excelling their brothers. Have there been many plausible candidates since? Until the recent rush, there's been a shortage of any IMs by comparison to past achievements.

[NickFaulks]

I'm sure they won't, but either we mean it or we don't.

We have reached a parting of the ways. I had believed myself to be a full-on supporter of women's chess, but by some standards I am not.

Suppose a sponsor wishes to give £30,000 with the specific aim of improving the chances of the Open team gaining Olympiad medals. They are asked to give an additional £20,000 for the Women's team and decline. Should they be turned away? To be clear, I understand and respect those whose answer is yes, but mine is no.

This sounds like the basis for a poll, but perhaps there are enough of them going on.

[Roger Lancaster]

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.

[Adam Raoof]

I am getting more women playing in my events than ever before. I am not sure this is because of anything specific I have done (though the new Golders Green venue gets a lot of nice feedback), I suspect it is because junior chess in general is thriving in the SE, and also because there are a lot of good coaches in schools (including girls schools) who enthuse the kids (and parents) to play events outside of school.