Women's In-Tournament Training

[Alan Burke]

Referring back to Sabrina's post at 12.28pm on 1st March, she wrote .. "What Sean has enabled is the encouragement to those females who either cannot afford to pay or feel they can spend money elsewhere, rather than being surrounded by discouraging men. I cannot see any negativity about what Sean has done.''

A question which I can't see has so far been answered is ..''Why should women just receive free entry because they 'cannot afford to pay' ? Surely Juniors/OAPs are more likely not to be able to afford to pay, so why should that particular fact be any reason to discriminate in favour of women ?

No doubt some will just say I am being negative, but that particular phrase seems to have been used many times in this thread by some who seem unable to actually give a reasonable reply and to just dismiss any opposition without having to answer the question at hand. All I am doing is giving an alternative point of view, so why should that always be seen as being negative ? If anyone can give a fair reply to any question asked then, even if others don't agree with it, they can at least understand the reasoning behind it (as Sean did in answer to my original post), However, unless the questions are asked, the answers will never be given !

As for those who say the scheme is to help the overall progression of chess, do they really think that the majority of those who pay their hard-earned cash to play in a competition are really bothered too much about the game of chess as a whole more than just wanting to improve their grading and/or win prize money just for themselves ? If they were THAT bothered, they could simply refuse any prize-money and let it go into the coffers of the ECF - but how many players have ever done that ?

It should also be noted that the womens' coaching at the tournament is NOT a free service and the coaches are charging for the sessions. If so concerned about wanting to improve womens' chess, might it not have been more beneficial if the coaches also give their services for free ? (The fee being charged might discourage some women from attending those sessions, whereas more might attend if it was free - exactly the same reason why the free entry to the tournament has been instigated !). Yes, the money is going to be used for future womens' events, but that doesn't directly encourage those who have shown their support for that particular tournament and are willing to actually attend the coaching sessions.

As for Sabrina's quote ... "being surrounded by discouraging men" , (a very generalised assumption, which she has since claimed was not her personal view but of other women she has spoken to), I would just like to ask on here how many feel they do/don't discourage female players - or could it be someone's own perception of how they are treated ?

The other quote of .."I cannot see any negativity about what Sean has done.'' now seems a bit at odds against Sabrina's other quote in a reply to Gareth (12.01pm 17 March), when she agrees that it seems wrong that women should receive prize money in an event which they have not paid to enter, yet men will have had to do so. Maybe she just could not see any negativity from the womens' point of view - but, those who see it from another angle shouldn't just be dismissed as being negative for doing so.

[Sean Hewitt]

A question which I can't see has so far been answered is ..''Why should women just receive free entry because they 'cannot afford to pay' ? Surely Juniors/OAPs are more likely not to be able to afford to pay, so why should that particular fact be any reason to discriminate in favour of women ?

If that question has been asked before then I have missed it although the question is fundamentally flawed as women have not been given free entry based on the ability to pay.

What actually happened is that women are clearly under represented in chess. Less tna 10% of players on the grading list are female and representation at my events is less than 3%. I believe that a better balance of female players makes for a more enjoyable weekend for everybody (look at the 4NCL for example) and I wondered what I could do to strike a better balance.

I therefore decided to offer free entry to females to see what difference that made. I had no idea if it would work or not. I still don't!

However, what I do know is

i) Female participation is massively up at Uxbridge
ii) Male participation has also increased
iii) Consequently, we have been able to increase the prize fund on offer for all

I think that's a good thing.

[Sean Hewitt]

nothing to say?

Bloody hell. That was a brilliant post too! I'm not I'm the best person to answer, after all, I'm not going to win anything!

Essentially though, I said that you can look at it two ways. One is that all players should play an equal share into the prize pool like in poker. Of course, that does not usually happen in chess anyway with discounts for titled players, juniors, seniors etc.

The other way is that the organiser puts up the entry fee in advance. Often he will not know until a couple of days before whether he will get enough entires to cover it or not. It's up to him what discounts he offers and to whom.

I think I can understand both viewpoints.

The one thing that we can say for sure is that overall participation has increased for this weekend and as a result, we have increased the total prize fund for all. Even men I think must be a good thing.

[E Michael White]

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

All this granddad bashing stuff is ill-informed. Generations prior to 1970 paid basic income tax at rates often over 40%, thats as high as recent higher rate tax. The money raised went into capital projects like motorway creation, which created prosperity including making modern housing more easily accessible, and funded university training via higher grants to release more national prosperity. Thus it is only right that the baby boomers reap some of these benefits.

By 2002 basic rate tax had been reduced to 22%, with changes in student grants and loans and pensions clobbered as society became more consuming. In 1933 civil servants, judges and teachers etc all took a 15% pay cut to help beat the great depression. Todays judges and civil servants are whinging about paying 2-3% more for the ponzi style pension arrangements they have !

[Alan Burke]

Sean .. many thanks for your reasonable reply in which you have given your understandable point of view without having to insult nor decry those who just ask a question about your motive, nor insinuate that those people are just being negative towards your idea. It's probably a pity that others did not just leave it to you to answer points concerning your own tournament - the phase about 'Speaking to the organ grinder .. etc.. etc...'' comes to mind !

Unfortunately, yes, I did previously enquire (2nd March 11.11pm) about the ''cannot afford'' situation, but instead of actually answering my question following her post which included that comment, Sabrina failed to reply to it, nor gave any reason/apology for including such false information and again just accused me of being negative.

Such false information and accusations have only served to inflame the feelings shown in this debate and it is a pity that you have now been left to answer for the actions of others, whilst also doing so in a very polite manner. If only they had left it to you to answer for yourself, all this thread could have ended on page 1 !!!!

[Mick Norris]

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

All this granddad bashing stuff is ill-informed. Generations prior to 1970 paid basic income tax at rates often over 40%, thats as high as recent higher rate tax. The money raised went into capital projects like motorway creation, which created prosperity including making modern housing more easily accessible, and funded university training via higher grants to release more national prosperity. Thus it is only right that the baby boomers reap some of these benefits.

By 2002 basic rate tax had been reduced to 22%, with changes in student grants and loans and pensions clobbered as society became more consuming. In 1933 civil servants, judges and teachers etc all took a 15% pay cut to help beat the great depression. Todays judges and civil servants are whinging about paying 2-3% more for the ponzi style pension arrangements they have !

Recent studies have shown that Baby Boomers have received greater benefits form the state than they have paid in, to the tune, I think of c£220,000 each - which is why the younger generation will have to pay c£70,000 each more than they receive to redress the balance

If you were to fully fund the unfunded pensions for Civil Servants, Uniformed services etc each of us would need to pay c£33,000 now

I am not bashing senior citizens, but am more aware of the facts than most, as I have many of them as clients and I have been a pension consultant for over 25 years

[Louise Sinclair]

? If they were THAT bothered, they could simply refuse any prize-money and let it go into the coffers of the ECF - but how many players have ever done that ?

I did refuse a prize I had won because it was a prize for the best woman which I felt unable to accept. Some of us have the courage of our convictions. I get irritated by merely being told that I have a negative view rather then debating the merits of a view point in a logical fashion. I only hope that Sabrina eyes her chess board in a logical rather then negative perspective.
It is very narrow minded to accuse those who have differing views of negativity.
However Sean is courteous and I hope he has a great turn out for his tournament and no I'm not interested in how many men, women, sexual preferences, juniors, ethnics, disabled arrive to beat down the doors and demand entry. Homo sapien will do nicely.
I'm of the poker playing view - let all contribute equally to the prize pot
Louise

[E Michael White]

Recent studies have shown that Baby Boomers have received greater benefits form the state than they have paid in, to the tune, I think of c£220,000 each - which is why the younger generation will have to pay c£70,000 each more than they receive to redress the balance

This sort if comment is political flavour of the month but without foundation. I havent seen a survey which allows for higher level of taxation during the 1950/1970 period. If you calculate a realistic version of the figure you suggest you would need to attribute all profits from the use of motorways and other capital creation projects to the generation, who invested the capital out of their incomes. If you did that the pensioner income would need to be increased to redress the balance.

Who suggested fully funding the civil service pension schemes? It certainly needs to be properly valued so that the amounts involved are known and transparent. We wouldnt all need to pay the amount you suggest; a more sensible approach would be to create government Index linked gilt edged stocks to the same value as required. This would at least transparently show the addition needed to the national debt rather than hiding behind the statement thats its unfunded. No doubt the figure you quote of £33,000 comes from a traditional actuarial valuation approach but these dont work very well at national level when you should be building in future national needs as regards supply and security of energy and commodities instead of assuming a notional rate of return on investments.

[Gareth Harley-Yeo]

the phase about 'Speaking to the organ grinder .. etc.. etc...'' comes to mind !

Alan,

May I plead with you to desist with your vilification of Sabrina on this thread? As somebody who has voiced similar concerns to yourself regarding free entry etc. I'd hope you'd heed my advice. I acknowledge you've been to some extent overly berated for your initial enquiry, but whereas I've initially had some sympathy for you, your constant hope of goading Sabrina et al. into continuing your disagreement is not only getting rather tiresome it's also turning everyone against you.

regards

Gareth

[Alan Burke]

Gareth, in now way am I trying to goad or vilify Sabrina. A comment was made and I am just asking a question about it. Nothing I wrote is not 'fact of the matter' and should it be right that a false statement is allowed to stand without it being questioned or at least the person apologising for doing so ? I am still quite willing to offer a hand of friendship over this matter to Sabrina, as I have done so on two previous occasions in this thread, but as yet to no avail.

[Roger de Coverly]

As somebody who has voiced similar concerns to yourself regarding free entry etc.

I think as Sean explained, it's really just part of promoting the tournament. It's not greatly different from having free entry for Sambuca players or a prize for the highest placed Welsh.

The coaching is a novelty although in some respects just a revival of what the BCF Junior Squad used to do. Presumably there will be some form of post event report.

[David Shepherd]

I'm of the poker playing view - let all contribute equally to the prize pot
Louise

Louise - I think this is the point you are missing. From a commercial point of view the women as a whole are not contributing equally,the majority are not contributing at all - they are not playing chess/entering tournaments, a very high percentage of entry fees come from men.

I see nothing wrong from a business model point of view. It makes sense to me to offer free entry for a limited time to encourage female participation, think of it as an advertising expense. The hope is when they play in the tournaments they will see how good the tournaments are and then pay the entry fees for future events, so increasing the prize pot for all and any potential profits from the event. In many ways the venture could be seen in the long run as seeking to charge women as a whole more rather than less.

[IanDavis]

As for Sabrina's quote ... "being surrounded by discouraging men" , (a very generalised assumption, which she has since claimed was not her personal view but of other women she has spoken to), I would just like to ask on here how many feel they do/don't discourage female players - or could it be someone's own perception of how they are treated ?

That quote is not the best way of expressing the reality of the situation.
If you are the only girl in a room of 100 men, you would not be behaving irrationally in feeling 'out of place'. Unfortunately the chosen quote infers, at least to me, that this is the male players' fault. Some female players, evidently, don't feel that way, and that's perfectly natural too. There is a drive to redress the balance, but there will never be total consent on what the best way to do that is.

At school, I can remember the only girl in the tournament being awarded the best girl prize and thinking to myself how farcical that was. Perhaps creating special tournaments for women alone to win is a better way forward, but this still brings out cries of sexism. We've all seen it written here and elsewhere, the suggestion that women are so inferior as to need their own tournaments is deemed offensive. Discounted coaching or entry fees are not going to produce anything different. Some will say it's a wonderful service and others will poo-poo the idea. You can't please everyone.

[Maria Yurenok]

This thread is getting more and more ridiculous every time I look at it. It's healthy to have a debate about something new and discuss alternatives, but it's not healthy to go for an all out attack on unpaid volunteer (Sabrina) who's thinking up and implementing new ideas to improve the poor state of women's chess in this country.

So, Louise and Alan - if you were under any illusion until now I can tell you as an observer of this thread that you are negative and not just a little negative, but well over the top negative. Why don't you come up with some alternative ideas and implement them yourself to improve women's chess? Oh, that must be because you don't care what happens to women's chess while it's so much fun to criticise this topic from the comfort of your own chair. Thankfully, ECF's policy is to promote women's chess so this country can be appropriately represented in international tournaments like the Olympiad, European Championships and so on. If you want to change that policy - complain to the CEO of the ECF but don't take it out on Sabrina.

And Alan - your offer of apology or friendship doesn't have to be accepted or publicly acknowledged. Pursuing it just makes you look like you want everyone to know how noble you are. Well, you kind of failed as you appear more of a stalker now, besides you continued your attack on Sabrina since your apology - so your original apology couldn't have been that genuine.

[Gareth Harley-Yeo]

As somebody who has voiced similar concerns to yourself regarding free entry etc.

I think as Sean explained, it's really just part of promoting the tournament. It's not greatly different from having free entry for Sambuca players or a prize for the highest placed Welsh.

Roger, a highest placed welsh would be fine as I've paid to enter in the first place. My issue was with women who pay nothing yet walk away with something.

Free entry for Sambuca players would never happen as it would be seen as unjust on others, I see free entry for women as the same.

BUT

As Sean has explained above, his free entry initiative has increased numbers of males as well as females. So if the net result is there's more of a prize fund for everyone then I think it's a good thing and should be applauded.

Maybe Sean can try other initiatives like reduced entries for Northerners at Southern events, or reduced entry for Southerners at Northern events - This might also increase entries and compensate those who live some distance from the event for their travel costs.