Women's In-Tournament Training

[LozCooper]

Loz .. Did I ever dispute the fact that you both do excellent work for chess ? What you seem to consider are personal attacks by me (.. and I note you fudged the issue of trying to find and reproduce any of those in this thread) were simply an answer to somebody else's view on the matter at hand. If you feel those were personal attacks, then would you say the same of those currently in disagreement on the thread where game fees / membership are being discussed ? Just because two people have a different point of view doesn't mean they are attacking the other personally - it's called matters of opinion !

Do you not consider it to be a more personal attack when a person tells someone they are starting to **** them off and also tells them to grow up ?

I was very disappointed that my offer of a hand of friendship was totally ignored by an official of the ECF (whether paid or not, the officials are still representing chess in this country and should always be mindful of the image they give of the game) but again you seem not to want to acknowledge that maybe such an offer should have be graciously accepted.

Obviously, you seem to feel that any fault is purely on my side and are giving your full support to a fellow ECF officer who you seem to think has done nothing wrong, so unless any further comment is made in response to this, I will do as you say and not waste my time when it seems its a matter of the old boy... oopps... peoples' club !

In the absence of an apology from you to Sabrina I have no intention of wasting any more time on the matter. You can carry on posting for as long as the moderators allow but I don't see what it will achieve.

[Alan Burke]

Loz ... Let me refer you back to my post at 11.37pm on 3rd March, in which I stated...

''Sabrina, I therefore apologise if my original post was not clear enough to be understood as just a genuine question to establish the reasoning behind Sean's offer, whilst I hope you will accept that the written word is sometimes not the best medium in which to express one's true meanings over a certain issue.''

I then followed this up with another post to reiterate my apology and ask for a hand of friendship - which has so far been snubbed ! (Loz, do you not feel that was a fair offer ?)

Therefore, I will again state that I have never been against any women playing chess but was just asking a question as to the reasoning behind free entries. However, it seems in this country at the moment that you are immediately branded as an ''ist'' if you make a comment against those who seem to feel oppressed. (ie: At football there is a Gay World Cup - OK, no problem with that, but I'm certain there would be an outcry of homophobia if someone suggested a purely hetrosexual World Cup.)

Therefore, I will just say that none of my comments have MEANT to be a personal attack on anybody and am sorry if some people have taken them in that manner - but sometimes it is the way in which comments are taken and not how they are given that causes problems. My only personal comment about Sabrina is that I would have thought she would have had the grace to accept my original apology - and I am still hoping that she will do so.

[Carl Hibbard]

This is all rather negative and we should please now all move onto matters new instead of getting distracted with any side issues

[Louise Sinclair]

I am a woman and I hate positive discrimination in chess . As for being intimidated by men most women end up marrying them at some point in life.I am instrumental in helping to organise the Sam Black Blitz event and as NCCL tournament director I oppose any form of singling out a particular group for special discriminatory treatment.
You pay your entry fee and play the opponent in front of you regardless of age, gender, sexual tendency or ethnicity.
If you can't stand the heat stay out of the kitchen.
Louise

[Alan Burke]

Welcome to the discussion Louise. If you will forgive me, I will refrain from making any substantial reply so that I can't be accused of anything by others and will just refer people to the byline at the bottom of your post !!!!

[Ben Purton]

I do think you are confused by positive D, and the whole justification of this is not really needed to appease Alan Burke's underhanded sexism but from a prospective of say morality;

One could argue then if one is born without legs, that he or she should not receive anything extra from a nation state as its unfair on the person with legs. Whilst one would counter this with the person being given benefit makes their utility on level more on par with his non-disabled counterpart. American Dream(Utopian) V E H Carr fans.

Being a Women is not a disability like the aforementioned example, but neither is being Black or a Jew yet sadly we have a society which perhaps discrimination is an overused word but inequality does take place.

In Chess inequality appears to take place in the sense women do not want to show up to chess as much as men. Why is this so? is an interesting debate but regardless of the reasons , Sean's tournament is a positive move to encourage participation. Its not an event we fund like the benefit-state we live in , it is a personally run event by e2e4 , therefore basically they can do what the hell they like......... At the end of the day if it increases % participation then it is a positive.

My personal view is that the free entry's publicity of the event is the reason people have joined not the 25 quid or so you save on the event itself. Based on the people I know who have entered who don't pay much.

I really hate positive discrimination, but I think to say Sean's tournament is doing it is very rash.

[Louise Sinclair]

I do think you are confused by positive D, and the whole justification of this is not really needed to appease Alan Burke's underhanded sexism but from a prospective of say morality;

I'm not confused by positive discrimination - I disapprove of it. Your tone is patronising and your assumption presumptuous - for your information I am disabled I have Ehlers -Danlos Syndrome. However I don't believe that my limited mobility should offer me positive discrimination across the chessboard at the expense of other players. If I d believed in positive discrimination I would be expecting appropriate seating arrangements to accomodate my scoliosis and special lighting for my weak eyes. When I have played chess neither have been provided and to expect cash strapped leagues or tournaments to offer me an EDS friendly chair and high quality lighting would be unreasonable to say the least.
As a female in the world of chess my experiences with supporters of positive discrimation have been negative - in fact they effectively put me off playing chess.I now stick to poker and chess organisation. These bigoted people decide that a group of players warrant "special treatment" in order to participate and patronise those players who simply wish to improve without concessions which I found infuriating and an insult to my ability to survive in a world of winners and losers .
Then they are offered special prizes for being female. I have never seen any tourney offering a prize for the best man conceding that a female could win outright I presume this is too radical and might promote the idea of a player raising their game without social engineering to be the best.
Personally I find the concept of a woman's prize very offensive and would never accept one.If women wish to compete with men at chess they will only suceed by going out there and beating their male opponents fair and square.
Not all women are shrinking violets - some of us are tough and ruthless. Do you think men with delicate liberal sensitivities should be protected from us?
Louise

[Ben Purton]

Factoring in your personal details and using them as form of debate is an interesting viewpoint to be heard.

So your anti womens titles , anti braille having their own room at the venue , anti womens prizes, anti racial quotas, which one could see either way. That is your own view, the fact is the e2e4 tournaments are the most successful weekenders in Britain for promoting FIDE rated chess. So really id rather side with that.

If your implying i am a delicate liberal, that is most amusing.

Ben

[Louise Sinclair]

Ben
It was you who mentioned disabled people. I only mentioned my own differences after your remarks from the point of view of a person with a disability who doesn't want to be perceived as different. I try to ignore it as much as possible.Yes I'm anti womens titles . In fact I'm anti singling out any person because of a possible ism. It is my opinion that prejudice starts with singling out groups for different treatment. Political correctness (which involves this kind of behaviour) is one of the most evil creeds alive today.
First select a "special group" then tell others that this group has special needs which must be catered to - finally anyone caught disobeying or disagreeing with positive discrimination should be ridiculed, punished and often excluded for daring to hold an opinion not in tune with the accepted modern multi culturalism prevalent today.
When will white heterosexual males qualify for special treatment after being excluded due to their status? well I suppose travellers qualify and some of those are heterosexual men.
As for braille I have known blind chess players "ooops I should have said visually challenged" and I have watched them playing using a board with pegs I don't recall them requiring special prizes however.

[Ben Purton]

You heard it here first. I am extremely politically correct

[David Shepherd]

Not special prizes maybe, but special playing conditions yes and in my opinion rightly so, if that is positive discrimination then I am all for it.

In my opinion where possible/practical special allowance should be made to allow any disabled person to complete on as equal a basis with anyone else as they can. I do not think it is the same issue at all and it is wrong to link the two.

[Louise Sinclair]

Not special prizes maybe, but special playing conditions yes and in my opinion rightly so

why do women need special playing conditions?

[Alan Burke]

Despite Carl's request that we move on from this 'side issue', Ben Purton has taken the opportunity to say about me ... "Alan Burke's underhanded sexism. Therefore although I was willing to do as Carl requested and refrain from that issue, I will not just refrain from giving a reply to such a false accusation.

Louise's original post was in keeping with the original topic as to the free entry for women, so why should Ben Purton then want to make such an unprovoked attack upon me ? It seems to me that Ben Purton has selective reading abilities as he should try and count the number of times thoughout this thread I have stated that I have no problem with women playing chess - therefore, how can that be sexist ?

Louise, I am sure you have already realised in here that political correctness is a disease in this country that seems to affect people's perception of fair-mindedness and equality for all. I'm sure you will agree that there are occasions when certain groups of people need to be treated and provided for in a different manner, but if their sex/colour/disability/religion, etc, makes no difference to the matter in hand, then at those times EVERYONE should be treated in the same manner. At Blackpool last weekend I never heard of any complaint from players wanting 'special' treatment, they just played alongside everyone else.

Louise, at least you can't be accused of being sexist !!!

[David Shepherd]

Not special prizes maybe, but special playing conditions yes and in my opinion rightly so

why do women need special playing conditions?

No I meant blind /visually impaired

[Ben Purton]

Why cant women be accused of being sexist, thats very sexist of you Mr Burke