The lack of vision in FIDE policy with regard to women titles

@QueenRosieMary said in #40:
> Ok so now we know where you are coming from. She is a successful, female streamer and probably making more of a living from her chess than a lot of higher-rated titled (male?) players. I sense some jealousy here! Please prove that her being a streamer somehow had something to do with her being awarded the title, despite her clearly meeting the requirements at the time...

yes, she is apparently self-taught, who learned chess thanks to the Queen's Gambit series, and she deserves her title even more for her efforts!

@keatanpatel said in #5:
> She may have a WCM title, but it is clear that she isn't playing at the level. FIDE are just diluting the titles by doing that, which is a shame because it puts a lesser perspective on the other WCMs who are playing 1800+ FIDE consistently. Many people have issues with the womens title as it is, and this certainly is not helping FIDEs decision. I'm also willing to bet if she wasn't a streamer there was no way she would have got the title, so why does this level of privilege exist in chess? If she should get the WCM title then all women at her rating should get it, WHICH WILL BE EVERYONE GIVEN THE RATING COMPRESSION. Titles are supposed to be hard to attain and that gives them value - doing this just makes me and I'm sure many others lose all respect for it.

Nothing wrong with streaming and getting successful by it! Jersey is a very small country, and in small countries, it's usually just a handful of players at the top. Sometimes these players are CMs, and sometimes they're even lower rated. I see nothing wrong with giving a title here, especially because the reasons for it are not gender-based.

This acronym exists for a reason ;)

Hating
Anyone
That
Ever
Reaches
Success

Seriously though, no need to be jealous that someone reached success while streaming.

@BlingGamer said in #10:
> That had cockiness from the guys play into it big time, not to discriminate the achievements of the girls because they did simply outplay them. Especially Alireza. Gotham even said "Alireza was playing the player and not the position" when Ju beat Alireza.

So what are you trying to say here? That they only won because of gender?

@greenteakitten said in #43:
> So what are you trying to say here? That they only won because of gender?
Nope. The boys played the player and not the position. They basically said "Oh, weak player, easy win" Then lost. They didn't win because of gender at all, and that wasn't what I was instigating. They won because the boys got too cocky. The girls outplayed the boys very much so, especially in Eline's scenario (Up a full knight against a guy who beat magnus)
"only won" is a bit harsh, because they didn't "Only win" because of their gender

@vishytheplayer said in #1:

> Many women players do not endorse this segregation and Judit of course has always advised to go fight it out in the Open section and not limit oneself to exclusive titles.

I agree that segregation isn't always good as it does reinforce this idea that women are worse at chess and that's why women titles exist, but I think taking them all away all at once is unreasonable too. Women titles have existed for years, and there are probably people out there right now with dreams of becoming WFM, WGM, WIM, etc. Not to mention the people that already hold this title. If you take all of their titles away, then what about the work that went into achieving the title?

Perhaps holding a deadline (say 2040) to gradually maybe lower the requirements for some titles, make new titles, or whatever to help transition between making all titles unisex would be a better option.

Regardless, it seems you are talking about two things here and combining them into one.

1) Separate women titles
2) Whether or not she should have gotten the title.

Jersey is a small country, and she happens to be one of the best players in that country. Why not allow her to have a title? It seems reasonable to me. In fact, I don't think this would have been any different if she was not a woman (although you can feel free to argue on that). The purpose wasn't really her gender, it was more about supporting countries and changing regulations, it seems. And that applies to both men and women, so I don't really see what the problem is here.

Congratulations to Lularobs!

@BlingGamer said in #44:
> Nope. The boys played the player and not the position. They basically said "Oh, weak player, easy win" Then lost. They didn't win because of gender at all, and that wasn't what I was instigating. They won because the boys got too cocky. The girls outplayed the boys very much so, especially in Eline's scenario (Up a full knight against a guy who beat magnus)

Then it would be sad if they thought that way. Although it's true, higher-rated players tend to push for wins where wins don't exist. I don't think the cases with Alireza and Eline and others were really about gender. I think they were more just huge upsets where a lower-rated player beat a higher-rated player, and I don't see the point in mixing gender into it. It only ends in arguments going in circles and circles...

> "only won" is a bit harsh, because they didn't "Only win" because of their gender

I was asking you if you thought so; that's not my personal opinion on it. :)

@greenteakitten said in #46:
> Then it would be sad if they thought that way. Although it's true, higher-rated players tend to push for wins where wins don't exist.
I've noticed that. And it's only against players they THINK will blunder, in reality Endgames at that level that are drawn are usually easily holdable.
> I don't think the cases with Alireza and Eline and others were really about gender. I think they were more just huge upsets where a lower-rated player beat a higher-rated player, and I don't see the point in mixing gender into it. It only ends in arguments going in circles and circles...
I think Alireza's case was kinda a mix of him pushing for a non-existent win and Ju serving him the facts cold. I suppose it depends on the views of the viewer.

@keatanpatel said in #5:
> She may have a WCM title, but it is clear that she isn't playing at the level. FIDE are just diluting the titles by doing that, which is a shame because it puts a lesser perspective on the other WCMs who are playing 1800+ FIDE consistently. Many people have issues with the womens title as it is, and this certainly is not helping FIDEs decision. I'm also willing to bet if she wasn't a streamer there was no way she would have got the title, so why does this level of privilege exist in chess? If she should get the WCM title then all women at her rating should get it, WHICH WILL BE EVERYONE GIVEN THE RATING COMPRESSION. Titles are supposed to be hard to attain and that gives them value - doing this just makes me and I'm sure many others lose all respect for it.

Sorry I'm not 'picking' on you at all!! But this is just not correct!! It has nothing to do with her streaming or Female Only Titles!! FIDE have Titles available to any gender in Olympiads and certain Tournaments. At a lower level to the usual Rating limit

Here are FIDE's requirements for all players!! not based on actual rating!

handbook.fide.com/chapter/B01DirectTitles2017?fbclid=IwAR1g9SPu_f8YyB7tsxfVuwIjE95lfsIqsRhq-whQa5Xh5tgCBKQI-j1bDuk

Perhaps holding a deadline (say 2040) to gradually maybe lower the requirements for some titles, make new titles, or whatever to help transition between making all titles unisex would be a better option.

With the progress of AI, I don't think that makes practical sense and so even taking the past into consideration, once again the rules must be made stricter as one progresses, and they shouldn't be lowered like FIDE has done recently! It's a good idea to have a vision and realize that they need to be done away with at the earliest.

The rating requirement for Olympiads was removed and the title awarded which again is problematic because as made clear earlier, when titles are given to young teens, they generally outgrow their rating in a matter of months, which serves the purpose of actually encouraging them.

It should not be based on pure incentive towards revenue which seems so in cases like these because lularobs was inactive for 8 months, plays at a RP of 1485 and wins a title through lowered standards, when it is the women themselves who should be rejecting the exclusive titles, if the vision is to help other women. This is detrimental to young players as was my initial statement, makes them distracted in the age of influencers and streamers who promote sketchy things. There's no reason for lularobs not to follow that path in the future.

And a UK university graduate sponsored by chesscom to play in the Olympiad is not at all comparable to Phiona or any other African chess player struggling to survive, who are waiting for just one chance to play and have their voices heard!

I'm not saying she shouldn't have been sponsored but that same yardstick can't be applied to all, again hinting at the weak rules. The issues are not mutually exclusive and must be taken up at policy level to avoid a fresh bunch of players who are there only because someone decided to tweak the rules after a dream, makes no sense. Whether it's an olympiad for the country or age championships, at the very least, fulfilling the rating should be a strict requirement for the title, a short term resolution.