Women's In-Tournament Training

[Gary Cook]

, be it the woman's boards in county chess and at 4NCL
Gary

To be factual about it, there is no woman's board requirement in County Chess. There was a proposal once , that there should be, or that female presence should influence a tie break in your favour. As far as I am aware, there was no support and it was dropped.

There is no female board requirement in the 4NCL and never has been. All that was required is at least one male and at least one female player. Provided that a single female player has a rating not more than 80 points below the lowest rated male player, she can play on as high a board as the 80 point rule and the team's requirements permit. You frequently see matches where this happens.

Bottom board of many 4NCL teams in the top two divisions is 2000 - 2100. Is it that difficult to reach that standard? Many male players do. The point perhaps is that if you didn't have the one female, one male rule, women would only get to play in the top divisions of the 4NCL if their rating or playing strength was in that range.

In other countries, Germany and France spring to mind, there is a separate national team competition for women.

Roger
You are quite right about there not being a women's board but in the early days of 4NCL I remember that what happened far more often than not was the two women faced each other on the bottom board - which obviously gave the impression that there was a women's board.
I wonder how many matches this season had only one woman in each team and they faced each other? Has this situation improved?

Gary

[John Moore]

This is rather lazy, Gary. Why don't you check the 4NCL website rather than expect Roger to do it himself. Since you know that if he takes an educated guess, somebody will take it upon themselves to prove him wrong!!

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Would it be possible to put a warning note on threads like this? Ideally, I should have read the whole way through before posting replies that with hindsight I now see might stir up old emotions, and I'm regretting some of the posts I've made. Is there no way to "lock" a thread to prevent replies being made once things get out of hand?

A decent rule of thumb is to not bother making contributions to posts more than a couple of pages old. With the possible exception of any threads of debate (within the thread!) in which you were previously directly involved. It's best not to respond to posts unless you have read everything which has subsequently been said.

*if you are regretting posts you have made just go back and 'delete' them.

I tend to blank (or edit) posts rather than delete them, if they are more than a few minutes old. But in this case, I've re-read what I said, and on reflection don't see any need to delete what I wrote. I think overall the perspective it gives of someone reading through the entire thread (rather than reacting at the time) might help some of participants see how their posts looked to others reading the thread later. Maybe they might even avoid posting in future in the same vein that was seen in this thread. Sometimes tea alone is not enough.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Ideally, I should have read the whole way through before posting replies

To be honest, you should do anyway regardless of the subject matter.

Yeah. Would it be possible to get an executive summary of the threads on the ECF funding debate? Or at least an idea of where to look for a summary of where things are with that? I'm sure I'm not the only person who gave up on the idea of reading through those threads. When you have monster threads like that, and the idea that you need to read through the entire set of posts before contributing to the debate, it kind of stifles the debate and ensures that only those around when the debate started have a reasonable chance of contributing to it - which is not, I'm sure, what was intended by those who posted so much that the debate ran to so many pages. I also pity the ECF officers who feel they need to read the entire set of those threads.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Ideally, people would have stuck to the subject matter and said how positive the idea of training was and offered their support to two talented coaches whilst parents would have had an opportunity to offer their input. Sadly this was not the case.

Maybe start a new thread (once the the coaching is finished and there is something to report on) and see if it goes any better a second time round?

[Alex Holowczak]

Would it be possible to get an executive summary of the threads on the ECF funding debate? Or at least an idea of where to look for a summary of where things are with that?

Yes, but not in this thread.

Consult your inbox.

[Jon D'Souza-Eva]

I'd like to hear how the coaching worked out from someone who actually had it (rather than the people who gave it, though that would be interesting too!).

Where did the extra women entries to this tournament come from? Were they existing, active players, beginners entering their first tournament, inactive players who were tempted back by the coaching / free entry or what?

[Louise Sinclair]

I wondered if some of the femaile entrants were persuaded along by their chess playing men. Often long suffering non playing people get left alone during a tournament so it crossed my mind that possibly extra entries came from the idea that they could keep active and receive coaching.

[LozCooper]

I'd like to hear how the coaching worked out from someone who actually had it (rather than the people who gave it, though that would be interesting too!).

Where did the extra women entries to this tournament come from? Were they existing, active players, beginners entering their first tournament, inactive players who were tempted back by the coaching / free entry or what?

I think a mixture of most of the above

[Alan Burke]

Richard Bates .. (regarding your post at 8.56am, 20 March) ... This is a classic example of how the written word is sometimes not the best example of how to communicate.

In the previous post of mine from which you copied my comment of ''other members of the chess community having to PAY.. etc..'', I never meant and I never said that I was only refering to the idea of free entries at tournaments, but was actually meaning ANY suggestions of trying to increase the number of people taking part. The 'payment' I refered to does not have to be financial, but could be the way in which existing players might feel that possible newcomers are being given beneficial treatment. (OK, those benefits might be there to help promote the overall game of chess, but not every individual really cares about that more than their own progression in the game.)

As an example, suppose, as an idea to increase the number of players, the ECF gave a copy of the latest Fritz to every newcomer so they could increase their knowledge - that wouldn't be detremental to existing players financially, but some of them, who couldn't afford to buy Fritz themselves, might feel the newbies were receiving an unfair advantage, which could eventually be reflected if the players were to meet in a competition. I suppose, yes, free entries could also be seen in the same way, as there may be an exisiting player who might not have been able to afford to enter this weekend's event at Uxbridge, whereas those who gained free entry were able to do so and possibly increase their gradings to eventually surpass the non-entrant.

I must stress that, again, I am not against trying out such experiments, but I just wanted people to view any suggestion from an alternative point of view. In fact, I am possibly playing "Devil's Advocate" here, as there are ideas I agree with, yet I still try to see the opposite viewpoint.

[Alan Burke]

Firstly, I apologise if anybody thinks I am now just 'reopening old wounds', but actually the points I am about to cover have not previously been answered nor acted upon. Also, please be aware that some discussions on this subject having been taking place away from the forum and that Carl Hibbard has already seen a copy of this post and has not made any objection as to why it should not be written nor challenged any of the facts.

At 10.56am on 15 March, Loz Cooper said he would not continue with this discussion unless I apologised to Sabrina for what he considered were previous personal attacks upon her. I therefore replied at 12.06am on the same date reminding him of my previous two such posts and again repeated my peace offer. However, Carl Hibbard then made a post at 12.51pm saying that this was all negative and we should all move on. I have therefore since pointed out to Carl in a PM that I was then 'caught between the Devil and the deep blue sea' as Loz wanted an apology, yet when I gave one, Carl says it was just being negative !

Since then I have not made any further such comments to Loz on the subject, as Carl had asked me to do so in a PM (and Carl told me he had also spoken to Loz in a similar vein). However, since then, Loz has now twice referred to me in his posts on the forum (12.44pm 18 March - in a reply to Louise) ... "If you or Alan consider me commiting a crime ... that is your problem.'' and (1.44pm 20 March) "Ideally, people would have stuck to the subject matter ... Sadly this was not the case."

Both the above comments have been made without me having reopened the issue with Loz and therefore I feel it is totally unfair for him to have such 'cheap shots' and not receive any public censure after the moderator had previously asked to refrain from doing so.

Furthermore in a post by Gareth (10.31am 18 March), he asked me to 'stop goading Sabrina' to which I replied (10.37am) that I never meant to do so and was still hoping for peace. However, following this reply, Carl Hibbard then posted (12.28pm) that ''we all move on from this." In a PM to Carl I again pointed out that I was only answering a post directed peronally at me in the forum, but an agreement was then made that no further references to the subject would be posted.

However, despite this, Carl then replied (3.33pm 18 March) to a post by Maria by once again publicly repeating his 'warning', even though I had kept to the agreement and no such further comments had been posted by me. I therefore informed Carl by PM that I thought this to be totally unfair to which he replied "You may be correct, but I have no intention of continuing to discuss the subject." I then did ask Carl to study the facts of the matter and questioned why he could not just admit he HAD made an error - a fact which I would graciously accept

However, as Carl even felt that I "may have been correct" over this issue. I have since asked him to delete the post of the second warning, especially as it has since been copied into the forum by three others and I feel this is totally unfair treatment. I have to tell you now that no such undertaking has been recieved and consequently this country is ... oops, wrong speech but similar feelings !

Again, I only post all the above as a last resport for not receiving any fairness from those who oversee this matter. I also repeat that Carl Hibbard has been sent a copy of this post beforehand in order to try and solve the matter away from this forum and to therefore prevent its publication in here. However, that has not been done and Carl has not objected to this post being made nor said any of the facts are mistaken. Therefore, please note that any criticism of this post should not only go in my direction.

[Carl Hibbard]

I believe your 'do this or else' sounding PM said:

However, I will refrain from posting this if you would just agree that you will act publicly on anyone else who breaches your request to 'move on' unless someone has first of all made a new reference to it and thus requires an answer.

My response was:

I will deal with "any" matter as I see fit but will certainly give you no such assurance based on this message.

I feel that myself and Jack do a reasonable job of moderation but the nature of this type of forum software is such that not every member will be happy with either some of the comments made or the line taken in trying to run things smoothly which is far from an easy job!

People are of course free to pass comments on if they feel I have not been fair in this case but again I would ask we move on to matters new please

[Simon Spivack]

In a speech to a conference of Soviet writers, Isaac Babel said: "Comrades, we have every right bar one, the right to write badly." This thread does illustrate how things can go wrong. Indeed, Babel was being ironic in a gentle manner, for he had been accused of writing badly (sic); for instance, some of his short stories in Red Cavalry portrayed the invincible Red Army in retreat. It is not enough to write well, one needs a good reader, too.

This is why many of us believe that some effort should be made when posting and reading. I am not looking for perfection, which is but an idle dream.

One post I can agree with, Loz!! Sadly, forums (if Mr Spivack tells me it's fora, I shall despair!) tend to go this way when you have an argument that runs.

I have been told I have no sense of humour, thus when I wrote

... it is hardly encouraging for those looking for gender parity.

Rather than mirth, this occasioned John to pull his hair out. And not just from his crown. John, I am sorry. I should have written

... it is hardly encouraging for those looking for a more equal balance of numbers between the sexes.

At least John, following this skirmish, can flee to La Coruña, for what it is worth, I have no such option.

[Ben Purton]

To quote Vinnie Jones.........

"If I understand what you just said, I'd agree with you"

[Alex Holowczak]

To quote Vinnie Jones.........

"If I understand what you just said, I'd agree with you"

I think Simon was apologising for his confusion between "gender" and "sex". Nouns in foreign languages may possess gender, e.g. 'le' and 'la' in French. By contrast, male and female are sexes.

Of course, nowadays the distinction has become blurred through misuse.