Ladies v Women

[Ben Purton]

Something happens which doesn't even affect people, which hurts nobody - and Christ, people start screaming all over the shop. People say it's because it's a trivial thing but that won't wash. If it's trivial, you don't need to be so ludicrously upset by it

This poem springs to mind.

Don't be stupid Alex.

Really.

Don't be stupid.

Horty, you do realise this poem is not talking directly about the holocaust as stated somewhere in this thread....

[Jonathan Rogers]

I'd actually like to distance myself from some of the kind remarks others have made on my behalf. Being an FM is not relevant to this thread, I'd agree with Justin there. Not even to rebut the charge that I might be a child - across the world, plenty of children these days play to FM standard!

Mind you, I have indeed enabled a number of women to play hundreds of FIDE rated games for Barbican in the 4NCL. That might be relevant, if Justin thinks that everyone who reacted to the ECF's badly phrased announcement somehow nurtures a problem with women playing chess.

(Quite how Justin thinks that taking a stance either way on the label "women" or "ladies" (or moreover on the apparent willingness of the ECF to make a change by invoking the wishes of the Eagle sisters) might indicate any type of opposition to female participation in chess is, incidentally, beyond me, but I suppose his blog must be updated with something or other).

[Paul McKeown]

I'd actually like to distance myself from some of the kind remarks others have made on my behalf. Being an FM is not relevant to this thread, I'd agree with Justin there.

Jonathan, your FM title, is, of course, not particularly relevant to questions relating to women in chess. In general, though, I would say that it does entitle your opinions with regard to chess to bear greater weight than the run of the mill chess player. In the same way that the views of an Adams, Short, Rowson, or Arakhamia-Grant, for instance, ought to be given more weight still. Your title indicates the greater effort that you have put into chess than the run of the mill player and the greater experience and insight that you bring to bear in questions of both chess technique and administration.

(Quite how Justin thinks that taking a stance either way on the label "women" or "ladies" (or moreover on the apparent willingness of the ECF to make a change by invoking the wishes of the Eagle sisters) might indicate any type of opposition to female participation in chess is, incidentally, beyond me, but I suppose his blog must be updated with something or other).

Justin's postings on this subject have been littered with spelling mistakes and liberally spiced with such labels for his fellow posters of "idiot" and the like, has classified their postings as, "high pitched", "screaming", "whining" and "shouting all over the shop". Furthermore he has demanded that others, "Grow up" and "Don't be stupid".

Which, all in all, would more indicate a mood of incoherent, sputtering rage, than one of reasoned, commonsense analysis. I think the problem is a Manichean world view, in which he casts himself as some pure, Christ-like leftwinger. And of course, without windmills at what would he tilt his lance?

Mind you, I have indeed enabled a number of women to play hundreds of FIDE rated games for Barbican in the 4NCL. That might be relevant, if Justin thinks that everyone who reacted to the ECF's badly phrased announcement somehow nurtures a problem with women playing chess.

I certainly would never have viewed you as some sort of boss-eyed male chauvinist, either, Jonathan. As for myself, I persuaded a former British (and Scottish) Ladies Champion to play for the (late, lamented) Athenaeum 4NCL team and then later for a number of years for the Athenaeum chess club itself. I always enjoyed her brilliantly barbed comments about male chess players, both in particular, and in general. Even those directed to my hapless self! I have played many women players over the years and always found their behaviour exemplary, something I couldn't, hand on heart, say of male chess players. [Thinking of it, just one exception, but that was 25 years ago, and the lady in question was young.]

O and beating some Bunny team whilst drunk in the Thames Valley KO final (Only joking Paul).

Congratulations to Hayes, from the Staines match captain. [For the audience: the game between Ben and myself ended in a draw, although truth be told, Ben was a little better at the end.] I would be pleased to discuss our game offline some time. For what it's worth, what I wrote to Staines chess club about it, was: "In my game, we exchanged blunders on move 8 when he played Nf3 rather than Nc3 in the mainline of a Four Pawns Alekhine and I replied e6, rather than Nb4 which would have forced Na3 to avoid the fork on c2, when White's knight would have been stuck on a daft square, leaving Black much better. Sheer inertia and lack of concentration on my part, it's something I know well enough. Then later, Ben diverged from the theory of the main line with 13. c5 rather than the automatic 13. Qe2 Qe7 14. Rad1 Rad8 etc. that has been seen thousands of times already. Needless to say I didn't cope at all well with Ben's innovation, responding 13... Nd5 14. Nxd5 exd5 and drifting into an inferior endgame rather than playing 14... Qxd5, which, as Ben confided after the game, looked rather worrying; naturally Herr Fritz confirms Ben's worries. At the end, with a bad bishop against a good knight and no prospects of a pawn-break in sight, I had no option but to accept Ben's draw offer. We thought objectively that the game should be drawn, but White, naturally, would have had all the fun. Blair Connell thought I was just totally lost, he's a very strong player, perhaps he's right, although to be fair to Ben and myself we were the one's playing the game and we both thought that for realistic winning chances, White needed rooks on. Fritz gave White a third of a pawn, for what it's worth." I would be pleased to hear your comments.

[Carl Hibbard]

Which, all in all, would more indicate a mood of incoherent, sputtering rage, than one of reasoned, commonsense analysis. I think the problem is a Manichean world view, in which he casts himself as some pure, Christ-like leftwinger. And of course, without windmills at what would he tilt his lance?

Have I not already questioned the need to go on with this topic

[Rob Thompson]

I think locking this may be a good idea

[Ben Purton]

Despite the color of my bits i was very happy with a draw because of the pre-drinking shot mixing antics at Weatherspoons.

Yeah Qxd5 and I am defo worst. I remember thinking "opps" in the game. I quite like the four pawn attack but I should really learn my moves as its very double edged. David howell plays it so well .

It was a close game.........Not like the last TV KO final I played in, where despite losing myself to Crouch on 1, we won 5-1(Sorry Jonathan)....Dont worry forum , these are the only two I've played in.

Kind regards

Ben

[Jonathan Rogers]

Yes. Not a good night, as I recall.

But didn't Pinner get its revenge on Slough in the Final the following year - in fact wasn't that when I played the Hippo against you?

(A cunning ruse, since Ben had prepared instead for the Elephant...)

[Ben Purton]

That was the final :O? Was it not the semi's?

Ben

[Ben Purton]

I remember when I was 15 having a 60 move game in the dutch V Cox-y as well, Id say that was my most painful loss in the TV as I played very well that game

Ben

[John Moore]

Well, this has all been rather tedious (I nearly put very interesting, but I realised I didn't mean it) and I am so glad I didn't get involved!

I suspect that you could put the main protagonists together in a room with a beer and they would agree to disagree after five minutes and go on to talk about something more interesting. The trouble with a debate of this kind is everyone wants to have the last word. Never mind though.

[JustinHorton]

Quite how Justin thinks that taking a stance either way on the label "women" or "ladies" (or moreover on the apparent willingness of the ECF to make a change by invoking the wishes of he tEagle sisters) might indicate any type of opposition to female participation in chess is, incidentally, beyond me.

Well Jonathan, I suppose you could read the piece in question, then you could tell me where I've said so....

but I suppose his blog must be updated with something or other

This would be a silly jibe at any time but it's rendered particularly silly by the fact that today's piece replaced another that was already written. This information is available on the blog - and, er, on this very thread.

one of reasoned, commonsense analysis....... I think the problem is a Manichean world view, in which he casts himself as some pure, Christ-like leftwinger.

Ah, yes.... reasoned, comonsense anyalysis. (What was that about Mad Hatters?)

Of course, rather than invent my opinions (you can do that if you wish, but you may need also to invent my responses) we could look at those I've actually expressed. Which could be and have already been summed up as...a number of men, on this thread, were happy to respond in the most extreme and remarkable terms to a minor and overdue name change. One screamed "kowtowing", another invoked Pastor Niemöller. Another went on an extended rant about women government ministers and rape laws, another still talked about hatred of the government and the women who were part of it.

None of this has anything to do with "reason" or commonsense". None of it involved expert knowledge of the organisation of chess tournaments. Indeed, knowing what had actually gone on was not apparently uppermost in the minds of most of the participants.

I've rarely seen such an OTT reaction set off by such a small provocation and I'm afraid that given that it's so extraordinarily disproportionate, I think that it's important to say so. It's quite important to ask why some people should go so off their heads on this, why others should jump to swiftly to erroneous conclusions and what it means that they should do so.

People aren't comfortable, I think, with being asked to justify themselves on this. OK. I can understand that (though not the remarkable and bizarre complaint that somebody is writing about this discussion somewhere else, as if this were a private forum). But I'm not at all comfortable with the views that were expressed or the terms in which people thought fit to express them.

That's important, I think. Spelling errors on internet postings, perhaps a little less so.

[Jonathan Rogers]

Justin

This is my last attempt to reason with you. (I actually agree with John that we would probably sort it out amicably if we were face to face).

You ask me to read your article and to tell you why I said

"Quite how Justin thinks that taking a stance either way on the label "women" or "ladies" (or moreover on the apparent willingness of the ECF to make a change by invoking the wishes of the Eagle sisters) might indicate any type of opposition to female participation in chess is, incidentally, beyond me."

Well, I would highlight the following in your piece:

"Of course, the men who have responded in this way are keen, at the same time, to stress that they have nothing against women, indeed not, and nor in fact does any other male chessplayer that they are aware of. Writes one of the loudest protestors:

chess is open and welcomes people of all sorts

and that they are

utterly unaware of any male resentment to women playing chess

Utterly unaware is a good term, here, since they are also utterly unaware of the impression they are giving of themselves."

So you do think that some of the comments here may put women (and perhaps people in general) off chess. True, you do not say that anyone wishes to do so. But I see no basis for the first suggestion either. I think it is common ground that no one should have discussed female politicians on this thread, even though I have seen nothing that has not also been commented on by eminent journalists in the Guardian or Independent. But I still think it obvious that these comments were written out of general frustration on the part of those who care about the symptoms of the wider political malaise in this country, that they have nothing to do with how chess players behave qua chess players and that no possible damage is done either to womens' chess or English chess as a whole.

I'm a bit surprised that you have not criticised the wording of the announcement itself. You are entitled to hold the Eagles in high regard and it is certainly true that they are still well disposed towards chess. The ECF message, though (go back to page one!), is rather easily interpreted as meaning "well, they have wanted this for twenty years and we have done nothing about it - but now that they have renewed their request as ministers...". That may well not be the case, but why are you not criticising the wording of an announcement which is so easily interpreted in that way?

As to my own contributions - I have explained the word "kowtow" already, and you did not respond to it. I said that if (I repeat "if") the ECF did something that it would not have thought of doing otherwise in order to please two ministers, that would justify the word "kowtow". Maybe it is slightly melodramatic but I still can't think of a better word offhand - and I don't think that this is because my vocabulary is temporarily disabled on account of the subject matter.

I will concede that I should not have used the word "unscathed", because indeed English chess is no worse (in the same way that it is no better) on account of this decision - and there was a better, more neutral word: I should have said "untouched" instead.

I still think that you had to work (unnecessarily) hard to make a blog entry out of all this!

[JustinHorton]

But I still think it obvious that these comments were written out of general frustration on the part of those who care about the symptoms of the wider political malaise in this country

But what in God's name, Jonathan, were people doing extrapolating - an explosive speed - from this small thing to "the wider political malaise in this country"? Do you not see that that's part of what bothered me? I mean it's partly the places people leapt to, their perception of what that malaise is - I mean talk of hatred of women in government is visceral, eye-popping stuff. You can't go down that road at that speed without people going "God, where are they going?" But it's partly the way in which instead of just saying "well, I don't much agree with this" or simply "what's the point?", it has to be all about Harman and Hodge and Hewitt and how evil they are. It's not me making those connections - but I'm surely going to comment when other people choose to.

that they have nothing to do with how chess players behave qua chess players and that no possible damage is done either to womens' chess or English chess as a whole.

Well, I don't know that this is true. I think that reactions such as the ones I've criticised speak of deeper attitudes, I think that's a reasonable analysis when things go through the roof quite as quickly as they did here. And you know, I think men can often make things uncomfortable for women in chess, even men who think they're beyond criticism in their attitudes. (I don't much, as it happens, like hearing people say how completely unprejudiced they are and how the same is true of chess, and I could give you an example or two as to why. And at any rate, it doesn't make for people who are prepared to look at themselves or at our game with a critical eye.)

I do think that seeing these sorts of reaction to this sort of change would do nothing to convince women that chess is a female-friendly environment. Of course this is an obscure corner of the internet and there's not much damage we can do here. But, as I say in the piece, what if it's representative?

why are you not criticising the wording of an announcement which is so easily interpreted in that way?

Because I did not interpret it in that way.

I still think that you had to work (unnecessarily) hard to make a blog entry out of all this!

Couple of hours work, had to get it off my chest anyway.

It's not, as it goes, a great way to write, at the last minute, though it's a characteristic of blogs, like newspapers, that much of the material is written swiftly and close to the time of publication. If I had had a week to think about it I'd probably have written it differently. But that wasn't how it worked (and I had a lot of other things to do yesterday). And I'm pleased enough with most of what I wrote.

[John Upham]

At the risk of severe political incorrectness, one should perhaps visit :

http://miss-universe-in-chess.blogspot.com/

and decide which is a lady and which is a woman?

I cast my vote for Pride & Prejudice team member : WGM Regina Pokorna

[Alex Holowczak]

At the risk of severe political incorrectness, one should perhaps visit :

http://miss-universe-in-chess.blogspot.com/

and decide which is a lady and which is a woman?

I cast my vote for Pride & Prejudice team member : WGM Regina Pokorna

Not a big fan of this, to be honest. Regrettably, it seems to be par for the course nowadays.