@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.
it's sad about what alireza thought. I admire what Polgar has done in the modern history of chess. and I hope that there will always be more people like her to achieve true equality of standards and titles. It would be a great idea to organize a mixed world championship.
@vishytheplayer said in #1:
> Popular chess players are defending these woman exclusive titles and although there has been some mindless rant on X by random people,
I know what you mean about mindless rants from random people.
There's hardly any scope for jealousy here. I'm not disputing the legality of the way in which said player acquired the title.
If something is acting against the primary purpose for which the titles were introduced - an incentive for sustainable growth for young chess players, there needs to be some policy level thought as to why standards are being lowered.
Asking for valid reasons for a rule change isn't a complaint.
A 1400 player getting a title is conceding that it's more worthy to chase monetary incentives in the short term, so again doesn't support the case for young female players and their parents.
Important to think why this is happening rather than treating this as a non-issue, or at least why you think it's not a big problem.
#8 Both are not mutually exclusive. The two issues can be questioned at the same time. There's no need to lower standards just because there are errors in other departments in FIDE. Questions were raised as to why titles are being misused even in that case.
@vishytheplayer said in #13:
> A 1400 player getting a title is conceding that it's more worthy to chase monetary incentives in the short term, so again doesn't support the case for young female players and their parents.
I wondered if this has anything to do with gender. so I spent 2 minutes searching, on my second search I found...
an 8 year old boy got a CM in 2015 with a rating under 1300
so....that's embarrassing for you.
One of the reasons I mentioned this was a special case in the original post is considering the stage at which the title was given out, that too reliant on lowering standards.
Most young players who achieve the Candidate Master titles do so by winning school championships or in age category events. And they outgrow the rating in a matter of months as most youngsters are underrated and waiting to improve.
Using the same yardstick for adults to grant titles, who can use this title to wrongly influence young players is a different ballgame, especially in the age of influencers, where marketing and right branding can distract young parents and children from pursuing goals of becoming a GM and halt further goals, in light of these dubious titles.
The situation is getting exasperated because of women not thinking in the long run, and actually they are the ones who should be protesting and denying to carry on this exclusive titles business, like Judit has always advised.
Many top players have mentioned that handing out titles like candy isn't feasible so that too is already being addressed, there is no singling out here based on gender. Either the rules should be stricter and different guidelines should be brought out for kids and adults or all CM titles should be scrapped altogether.
This is not gender related, the regulation changed for everyone.
Lifting the minimum rating for direct titles, which is much lower than what you usually need, looks debatable, though. I can see the merit in case of people from countries who rarely compete in FIDE rated events,
But in this caee, the person usually plays at around 1500 level, did so at the Olympiad, made 4/10 against similar rated players. You could say that the opponents might have been underrated. But getting a direct title for a tournament that cost the player over 40 rating points and actually lowered their rating below 1500...
Sure, it is quite a feat to play the Olympiad, but a title conveys meaning. They are an indication for a level of play. They are usually not awarded for participation alone as an honorary title.
You can probably say it is not a big enough problem to worry about, but still this feels wrong.
IMHO the mistake here is mixing two completely different questions: separate women titles and direct assignments. I have no problem with separate women titles as long as they are clearly distinguished by the "W" prefix. If you see a woman with "WGM" title, you know exactly what it means and what was required to earn it; you also cannot mistake it for the "open" GM title. And when you see a woman with a "GM" title, you know that she had to fulfill the same requirements to earn it as a man (except for the direct assignments, that is). So no confusion here either.
Direct assignments, on the other hand, I find rather questionable in general. And even more so if a woman can earn an "open" title in ways that are not available to men. That is what introduces actual inequality and IMHO it is most unfair to those women who earned the "open" titles through the standard way.
(Disclaimer: my interest is purely theoretical, it's been long since I realized I would never get close to having any title.)
@QueenRosieMary said in #8:
> Yep. I'm sure that's just what Hans and Alireza were saying in the Tata Steel Masters after they got beaten by Eline and Ju Wenjun...
And Magnus “ONCE” lost to a 2500. Doesn’t mean the 2500 is better than Magnus.
@mkubecek said in #17:
> (Disclaimer: my interest is purely theoretical, it's been long since I realized I would never get close to having any title.)
And now is your happy day, as you just learned that you only need to play in the olympiad and get some 50% or so. Make sure your teammates play bad enough however so that you play at the bottom of the table. So buying your team lots of drinks is your path to CM! ;-p
Only if FIDE starts counting results from IMO as "olympiad", I'm afraid. :-)
