tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4809932052245826792.post665478095168900642..comments2011-08-04T00:27:27.304-07:00Comments on Gary Walters Chess: Women's Chess TitlesGraysonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07852655385684288369noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4809932052245826792.post-75327322770910588542009-12-20T17:19:19.607-08:002009-12-20T17:19:19.607-08:00Hi Gary!
You may want to have a look at my long a...Hi Gary!<br /><br />You may want to have a look at my long article on this issue at<br />http://www.chessblog.com/2009/10/abolish-womens-itles-ridiculous.html<br /><br />Best chess wishes to you!Alexandra Kosteniukhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05061264948906490648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4809932052245826792.post-18305431266700408602009-11-29T08:14:50.562-08:002009-11-29T08:14:50.562-08:00PPS - more specifically to your comment about 10 P...PPS - more specifically to your comment about 10 PhD candidates vs competitors in a title tournament, all the competitors in a title tournament may well anticipate getting the title some day, just not all together. Indeed, in all title tournaments some fraction of the competitors already have the title.<br /><br />Also, for most titles, it takes a portfolio of good performances to earn the title, so even through that effect alone the competitors in any one tournament can expect to earn their titles at different times (just like PhD candidates do).<br /><br />Finally, of course, a title is a lifetime distinction (like a PhD or a black belt), not a championship needing defending, to be passed on to the next winner of the subsequent iteration of the tournament.Kristo Miettinenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11915769006991993189noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4809932052245826792.post-66470350355168602712009-11-29T08:05:24.812-08:002009-11-29T08:05:24.812-08:00Hi Gary! (PS - Gary or Grayson?)
That "ches...Hi Gary! (PS - Gary or Grayson?)<br /><br />That "chess titles are directly competitive" is not strictly true - the criteria for awarding the titles happen to be competitive, but the title itself is not thereby rendered strictly competitive. The criteria are subject to change under the hood (and can be waived in various cases) without the title itself changing. All that I mean by this is that the competitive criteria in use today are not essential to the title itself, they don't change what it is that we are talking about. The competitiveness of present criteria does not pass transitively to the title.<br /><br />The question remains: are there any precedents, in any respected field of endeavor, for gender-differentiated titles? Having thought some more about it, the only ones I can come up with are noble titles: king vs. queen, duke vs. duchess and so on. And even there I think that ontologically they are really two names for the same underlying distinction, not two separate distinctions, one awarded to men, the other to women.<br /><br />Chess might take the example of martial arts, where the titles (ranks) are the same for men and women, but the championships are separate.Kristo Miettinenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11915769006991993189noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4809932052245826792.post-28415054818236030762009-11-27T09:45:59.187-08:002009-11-27T09:45:59.187-08:00Respecting your second point--e.g. "W"Ph...Respecting your second point--e.g. "W"Ph.D.s--I probably agree with you. Many others have made this good point also. Further work is needed in fully understanding the distinctions. Chess titles are directly competitive, for example, whereas Ph.D.s are not. When 10 candidates enter a Ph.D. program, all 10 can anticipate success. Not so for a title tournament.Graysonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07852655385684288369noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4809932052245826792.post-49939278201182021862009-11-27T09:01:32.391-08:002009-11-27T09:01:32.391-08:00Hi Gary!
Thanks for the link. Fun stuff here.
I...Hi Gary!<br /><br />Thanks for the link. Fun stuff here.<br /><br />I think you hit upon an important point here: "women's titles are almost entirely affirmative (and not at the expense of others)". I would word it differently, e.g. pointing out that there is a big difference between awarding the same title (e.g. Grandmaster) according to different norms for men and women (a purer example of affirmative action, and more uncontroversially a bad idea) and establishing a separate title for women, but I think this is the same point you are making.<br /><br />That said, there is a remaining troubling point from my perspective: the fact that GM/WGM etc. are titles, not championships. As a matter of ontology, they belong with PhDs, Nobel prizes, and the like; not with olympic gold medals or NBA/WNBA championships. Is their any precedent in a highly respected field (as I imagine chess should be) for gender-differentiated (or race-differentiated, or whatever) titles? I can't think of any offhand.Kristo Miettinenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11915769006991993189noreply@blogger.com