English Chess Forum

"When I thought of reasons people would have for being against this rule change proposal, I confess "How do we know what a female is?" wasn't one I saw coming."

I only mentioned it as it was clear that the idea of allowing ineligible players in certain circumstances was already dead in the water. I am glad that ECF appear to have the transgender issue under control. An easier way to control it would of course be to say, "Chess is chess - gender is irrelevant."

Kevin Thurlow wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 15, 2019 9:11 am

An easier way to control it would of course be to say, "Chess is chess - gender is irrelevant."

There are those who say that female chess players would benefit from such an approach. They are of course almost exclusively men.

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 15, 2019 11:28 am

Kevin Thurlow wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 15, 2019 9:11 am

An easier way to control it would of course be to say, "Chess is chess - gender is irrelevant."

There are those who say that female chess players would benefit from such an approach. They are of course almost exclusively men.

Dieting aside, it may be possible to have one's cake and eat it if this Wikipedia entry can be relied on:

Cathy Warwick (née Forbes) (born 6 February 1968) is an English chess player and writer.

She won the British Women's Chess Championship three times, in 1987, 1988 and 1994 and played for the England women's chess team. She was awarded the title of Woman International Master, but resigned it 15 years later in protest at the whole principle of having separate "inferior" women's titles (although she is not in principle opposed to women-only tournaments).

Tim Spanton wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 15, 2019 1:50 pm

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 15, 2019 11:28 am

Kevin Thurlow wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 15, 2019 9:11 am

An easier way to control it would of course be to say, "Chess is chess - gender is irrelevant."

There are those who say that female chess players would benefit from such an approach. They are of course almost exclusively men.

Dieting aside, it may be possible to have one's cake and eat it if this Wikipedia entry can be relied on:

Cathy Warwick (née Forbes) (born 6 February 1968) is an English chess player and writer.

She won the British Women's Chess Championship three times, in 1987, 1988 and 1994 and played for the England women's chess team. She was awarded the title of Woman International Master, but resigned it 15 years later in protest at the whole principle of having separate "inferior" women's titles (although she is not in principle opposed to women-only tournaments).

I understand that women who are already involved in chess may have opinions such as Cathy's on a number of related issues. After all, they're already involved and willing to play in the current environment.

The problem is - what about all the women and girls who stop playing? There are more of them than people like Cathy, and would a different approach be of benefit to them?

Tim Spanton wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 15, 2019 1:50 pm

She was awarded the title of Woman International Master, but resigned it 15 years later in protest at the whole principle of having separate "inferior" women's titles

I cannot trace how she earned the title in 1990 - probably directly from a good result in a women's event, but maybe there was no rating requirement in those days. Historical title regulations are not my special subject.

In any case, she never seems to have told anyone about this protest, because the title is still there.

Forbes/Warwick got the WIM title through qualifying for the 1990 women's Interzonals (an automatic award, I believe)

She may have tried to give up her title but AFAIK it was not accepted by FIDE.

Matt Mackenzie wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 15, 2019 3:34 pm

She may have tried to give up her title but AFAIK it was not accepted by FIDE.

I don't find that convincing. It would certainly be accepted if she tried now.

Would it - why? Would it be the same with any title (regardless of gender) for any reason??

Matt Mackenzie wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 15, 2019 3:38 pm

Would it - why? Would it be the same with any title (regardless of gender) for any reason??

Yes, why not?

Matt Mackenzie wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 15, 2019 3:38 pm

Would it - why? Would it be the same with any title (regardless of gender) for any reason??

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 15, 2019 3:45 pm

Yes, why not?

What would the policy be if someone renounced a title and susequently changed their mind and requested its reinstatement?

David Sedgwick wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 15, 2019 7:27 pm

What would the policy be if someone renounced a title and subsequently changed their mind and requested its reinstatement?

This is getting obscure, and my first thought was that nobody would have much sympathy. However, if they reapplied based on the original information, paying the fee again, why not?

David Sedgwick wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 15, 2019 7:27 pm

What would the policy be if someone renounced a title and subsequently changed their mind and requested its reinstatement?

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 15, 2019 8:05 pm

This is getting obscure, and my first thought was that nobody would have much sympathy. However, if they reapplied based on the original information, paying the fee again, why not?

The reason why I asked the question is that the thread jogged my memory.

During my time at Cambridge - so over 40 years ago - there was a debate in academic circles as to whether degree holders should be entitled to request the cancellation of their degrees and, if so, whether they should subsequently be entitled to request their reinstatement.

My thought is that resigning a Grandmaster title is similar to resigning a British honour such as a MBE. You can make a symbolic gesture and/ or decline to use the title but the award still stands. There was famously a spate of people resigning their MBEs in the sixties in protest at the Beatles being awarded them and ironically John Lennon would resign his ten years later in some statement about world peace. The official line was that MBEs can't be resigned and all holders could do was return their insignia which they could have back at any time.

Getting the thread back on track I was opposed to the motion on the grounds that it would make life difficult for county captains without really helping the object - increasing the number of women in chess (the open only has six competing teams anyway). However the reactionary comments on this thread have almost swung me around to supporting it. Yes, if we're going to be pedantic a male to female transgender player should meet the eligibility criteria but if a county team simply puts one of their players in a wig and dress for the match they should receive a lifetime ban.

It's such a shame that a proposal to ban bigoted old men from county teams would cause even more damage, otherwise I would happily support it.

"There are those who say that female chess players would benefit from such an approach. They are of course almost exclusively men."

We could listen to the female players of course, rather than patronize them by saying we will give you a special place in the team to allow you to play. But it's the eligibility issues which are paramount here. There have been huge arguments about this before (e.g. relating to Cambridgeshire, Lancashire/Greater Manchester). Suddenly saying you can recruit someone from anywhere to play for a county is just wrong.

Suppose a regular player is suddenly kicked out of the team to allow an ineligible one to play. There is a real possibility that the regular player might be annoyed enough not to play any more.

"listen to the female players" - most of whom seen to think women-only events and "positive discrimination" *do * have a place in chess?

(some may prefer that not being the case in an ideal world, however we do not live in one)