Women's In-Tournament Training

[Sean Hewitt]

For those questioning the legality of free entry to women, the legal advice I received is "Preferential treatment is unlawful unless it is to address under representation"

As this is clearly addressing the under respresentation of women playing chess, I was advised that we were fine to proceed under UK law.

[Ben Purton]

Could one not argue that it is not my entry fee funding these entries but the hotel subsidy? Therefore I don't feel my entry funds this so much.

[Gareth Harley-Yeo]

For those questioning the legality of free entry to women, the legal advice I received is "Preferential treatment is unlawful unless it is to address under representation"

As this is clearly addressing the under respresentation of women playing chess, I was advised that we were fine to proceed under UK law.

Sean, as it's your event you might be the best person to ask. Do you agree that it's a little unfair that nontitled females are eligible to win prizes they haven't contributed to?

Obviously it's your prerogative how you set out the prizes. I'm just curious as to how you came to your decision.

(This should in no way be interpreted as an attack on e2e4 in anyway, I’m simply seeking clarification. nothing more)

[Mick Norris]

Do you feel the same about discounts for juniors, unemployed, senior citizens? I use those examples because they are not chess related eg by title or rating.

Or would you be happier if they were to receive free entry but couldn't win a prize?

There is common link between the 3 examples above. They all have a low income. The same cannot be said of women (please less us not start on that debate).

Not true - senior citizens come in 2 categories - firstly, there are those who spent years in final salary pension schemes and are now living on decent levels of pension income, often index-linked, possibly with considerable other financial resources from having made money in the housing market and/or inherited it

Secondly, there are those struggling on state pension only, with means tested state benefits on top

I don't agree with discounted chess entry for senior citizens because of the first category, who are considerably better off than, say, young chess players unable to afford to get on the housing ladder and struggling with student debt

You will note that employment for the over 60s is rising, and for the younger generation is falling, according to statistics out this month

Not sure whether discounts for seniors are legal these days

[Adam Raoof]

To be fair, teenage boys have riotous hormones too! However they keep playing chess in large numbers.

Off-topic (probably just as well), but teenage boys don't keep playing chess in large numbers in this country, and haven't done so for the past 30 years.

Well, I meant in comparison to girls - nobody can argue that point.

[LozCooper]

To be fair, teenage boys have riotous hormones too! However they keep playing chess in large numbers.

Off-topic (probably just as well), but teenage boys don't keep playing chess in large numbers in this country, and haven't done so for the past 30 years.

Well, I meant in comparison to girls - nobody can argue that point.

Wanna bet? I'm sure someone will

[Louise Sinclair]

it might be that because boys mature slightly later then girls that they are inclined to stick with chess while the girls are off out with guys who are at least a couple of years older.

[Adam Raoof]

Well, I meant in comparison to girls - nobody can argue that point.

Wanna bet? I'm sure someone will

I was going to edit that statement, but I didn't think I would be quick enough....

[Sean Hewitt]

For those questioning the legality of free entry to women, the legal advice I received is "Preferential treatment is unlawful unless it is to address under representation"

As this is clearly addressing the under respresentation of women playing chess, I was advised that we were fine to proceed under UK law.

Sean, as it's your event you might be the best person to ask. Do you agree that it's a little unfair that nontitled females are eligible to win prizes they haven't contributed to?

Obviously it's your prerogative how you set out the prizes. I'm just curious as to how you came to your decision.

(This should in no way be interpreted as an attack on e2e4 in anyway, I’m simply seeking clarification. nothing more)

[Gary Cook]

Louise, this sounds extremely bitter that you haven't won a title. Perhaps if you had, you would be less against womens chess

If there is one thing that Louise has always been very clear about and that is her aversion to these 2nd class titles.

At one tournament she refused a cash prize she had "won" because it was for the best female.

Gary

[Gareth Harley-Yeo]

For those questioning the legality of free entry to women, the legal advice I received is "Preferential treatment is unlawful unless it is to address under representation"

As this is clearly addressing the under respresentation of women playing chess, I was advised that we were fine to proceed under UK law.

Sean, as it's your event you might be the best person to ask. Do you agree that it's a little unfair that nontitled females are eligible to win prizes they haven't contributed to?

Obviously it's your prerogative how you set out the prizes. I'm just curious as to how you came to your decision.

(This should in no way be interpreted as an attack on e2e4 in anyway, I’m simply seeking clarification. nothing more)

nothing to say?

[PeterTurland]

I hesitate to contribute to this particular debate, because of its increasingly dichotomous nature. As I have said before on this forum, there are two ways of looking at a problem, either 'top down' or 'bottom up', I arrived at this analysis technique from learning to program computers many moons ago.

To paraphrase this, we can either look at life in terms of ourselves, or look at ourselves in terms of life.

The problem with this is, we end up with up with a different answer, depending whether we are male or female and I don't mean which kind of genitalia we have, I think that Chinese philosophy with its idea of yin and yang had a point and if you think that is meaningless, please compare these two photos.



Please imagine a ship with a hundred people on it, ninety nine females and one fertile male, the ship springs a leak and sinks, luckily this happens close to an island and all survive, ok there would a certain amount of inbreeding, but I should imagine if you visited the island a thousand years later, there would be a viable society, were the gender of the people on the ship reversed, I very much doubt that a viable society would ensue, this means in terms of species survival, females are more important than males.

So with this in mind, as a contextual reordering of the debate, would the ECF benefit from a positive discrimination in terms of female participation, I would most definitely vote yes.

I know the ends do not justify the means, but that does not mean one cannot shift a few balances in terms of a long term goal, as long as those balances cause not too much pain.

I believe chess has enormous cultural benefits, ergo I believe it should be on the curriculum.

The more women play chess, the more the likelihood it will be on the curriculum.

The more children learn chess between five and seven years old, the better the world will become in my estimation.

[Mike Truran]

Peter

What on earth are you talking about?

[Sebastian Stone]

Peter

What on earth are you talking about?

Increasing female participation in chess to bring about a better world for all of us.

Duh!

[Adam Raoof]

Peter

What on earth are you talking about?

I don't know, I quite liked the scenarios Peter outlined. I am sure one of them formed the basis of an episode of Star Trek (the original series).