Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Counterintuitive economics of a chess tournament

davidsmerdon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 51 posts

Re: Counterintuitive economics of a chess tournament

#21

Post by CJefferson »

throwaeayBan wrote: post #9
the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are just too many male chess grandmasters. Look into places where men are outnumbered and you will see "to male X" as a separate category.

Mind providing examples of males having prize when outnumbered (preferably not once but consistently) or where men get headstart (like in marathon I can't remember name of, where women get head start)? Because I will be angry about that too. It kills competition, it kills meritocracy.

How does having a women prize kill competition exactly? There is an overall prize for everyone to compete for. A 'best man' prize would, in every chess tournament I'm aware of every happening, always go to the best player anyway. The day a woman wins the top prize, the is the day we could introduce a 'top man' prize.

And why single out the women prize, as opposed to the over 65 or under 13 prizes?

Re: Counterintuitive economics of a chess tournament

#22

Post by ptaipale »

onion2k wrote: post #13
throwaeayBan wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mind providing examples of males having prize when outnumbered (preferably not once but consistently) or where men get headstart (like in marathon I can't remember name of, where women get head start)? Because I will be angry about that too. It kills competition, it kills meritocracy.

Positive discrimination is a reaction to negative discrimination. The notion that things would be more equal without the positive discrimination is flat out wrong; all the positive discrimination is doing is countering the negative prejudices. When the negative discrimination goes away then the positive discrimination won't be necessary any more. We live in a more equal world with positive discrimination in favour of…

Positive discrimination is not only reaction to negative discrimination. It may also be just plain simple discrimination. Of course people may claim that positive discrimination is always just a reaction, but in reality it may be just sexism or racism.

Re: Counterintuitive economics of a chess tournament

#23

Post by jstanley »

madsravn wrote: post #8
throwaeayBan wrote: post #3

"Top female Prize " and... no top male prize...We can never be equal while there is any discrimination even when it is possitive. And please don't start with "we need more women in chess thus...". No, we need good players in ches and not insert anything here . And tell, what forces us to improve more than competition? Why play better when you will get prize anyway?

I agree with you. But this article states a few reasons, I think are a valid, why a female league is necessary: http://www.chessblog.com/2009/10/abolish-womens-itles-ridicu...

From that article:

> Nobody has ever said that WGM is equivalent to GM, everybody knows it's not the case, WGM is just a step towards IM then GM, to make sure the player does not lose interest as it is so hard to attain the higher titles.

That's all well and good, but what prize is there to encourage men who are at the level of WGM? Why is no prize needed for men?

Re: Counterintuitive economics of a chess tournament

#24

Post by Sir_Cmpwn »

throwaeayBan wrote: post #3

"Top female Prize " and... no top male prize...We can never be equal while there is any discrimination even when it is possitive. And please don't start with "we need more women in chess thus...". No, we need good players in ches and not insert anything here . And tell, what forces us to improve more than competition? Why play better when you will get prize anyway?

I don't appreciate that this is being downvoted and flagged into oblivion. It's frustrating that we Hacker News citizens seem to have adopted a list of taboo topics that we aren't allowed to discuss - such as anything related to discrimination against a non-minority. I think this is an interesting discussion to have, and personally I wonder if segregating chess marginalizes the women, too. The atmosphere around this becomes that men are inherently better at chess and women need a special league with a less glamorous title. Chess isn't inherently a game where gender factors into your ability to play. The article [0] linked earlier establishes chess as a sport, which is fair, but it doesn't follow that all sports should be segregated.

[0] http://www.chessblog.com/2009/10/abolish-womens-itles-ridicu...

Re: Counterintuitive economics of a chess tournament

#25

Post by throwawayChess »

CJefferson wrote: post #20
throwaeayBan wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you. Exactly what I was refering to (was linked in article).

Then why specifically single out the female award, instead of the Under 13 and 65+. Why are you not demanding a '13-65' award?

Award for kids I can "justify" by "well, you went against all odfs and you... got somewhere" (still, would argue for separate group with separate prizes). Women are not going against all odds - remember they are equals, as capable and stuff. As senior prize - stupid. Should not be there.

Why I singled out women? Because these "women only" prizes and headstarts are everywhere today. And I am pro equality - means no headstart for anyone.

Re: Counterintuitive economics of a chess tournament

#26

Post by bencoder »

Sir_Cmpwn wrote: post #24
throwaeayBan wrote: post #3

"Top female Prize " and... no top male prize...We can never be equal while there is any discrimination even when it is possitive. And please don't start with "we need more women in chess thus...". No, we need good players in ches and not insert anything here . And tell, what forces us to improve more than competition? Why play better when you will get prize anyway?

I don't appreciate that this is being downvoted and flagged into oblivion. It's frustrating that we Hacker News citizens seem to have adopted a list of taboo topics that we aren't allowed to discuss - such as anything related to discrimination against a non-minority. I think this is an interesting discussion to have, and personally I wonder if segregating chess marginalizes the women, too. The atmosphere around this…

> It's frustrating that we Hacker News citizens seem to have adopted a list of taboo topics that we aren't allowed to discuss - such as anything related to discrimination against a non-minority.

And yet the topic comes up repeatedly every time there is the slightest possible way to bring it up, even if it's completely unrelated to the article, like the grandparent's post. The original article had no mention of female prize or anything related to discrimination.

Edit: reduced hyperbole

Re: Counterintuitive economics of a chess tournament

#27

Post by bluecalm »

throwaeayBan wrote: post #3

"Top female Prize " and... no top male prize...We can never be equal while there is any discrimination even when it is possitive. And please don't start with "we need more women in chess thus...". No, we need good players in ches and not insert anything here . And tell, what forces us to improve more than competition? Why play better when you will get prize anyway?

I upvoted you because you have the right sentiment imo. Special prices for black people or people with red hair would be ridiculous and those groups are even more underrepresented than women are.

The thing is though that women have it harder in chess the same way as in boxing, tennis or sprinting.

People try to run circles about the fact that there are very significant biological differences which influence performance in chess but if you ever were a part of competitive chess world (or any intellectual game really, for example bridge) you wouldn't argue with that. It's just too obvious looking at children taking up chess and seeing the pace of progress they make. There are many lazy slobs who are better at chess than the most dedicated women out there (maybe with exception of Hou Yifan). It's the same way a lazy smoking overweight aged player from somewhere in top 200 of ATP would absolutely destroy Serena Williams, it's just the difference is smaller in chess but it's still there.

Re: Counterintuitive economics of a chess tournament

#28

Post by komaromy »

TorKlingberg wrote: post #11

Could someone provide some context? Had Nakamura and McShane already played each other, and the second game looked like it was going to become an exact copy?

This was their first meeting. The line that Nakamura would have had to play to avoid the repetition was one that McShane had won a smooth victory in earlier in the tournament, so he was leery of going into it.

Re: Counterintuitive economics of a chess tournament

#29

Post by komaromy »

yitchelle wrote: post #16
slyall wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are referring to this page: https://millionairechess.com/prizes Also prizes in each division for "Top senior prize (65+)" and "Best child under 13 yrs old"

Prizes for best dressed? Is this referring to some chess maneuvers, or the actual clothes the players are wearing?

The actual clothes. Chess players are notoriously poorly dressed and the organizers want to be able to eventually package this for television, so they give some incentive for improvement.

Re: Counterintuitive economics of a chess tournament

#30

Post by [deleted] »

bluecalm wrote: post #27
throwaeayBan wrote: post #3

"Top female Prize " and... no top male prize...We can never be equal while there is any discrimination even when it is possitive. And please don't start with "we need more women in chess thus...". No, we need good players in ches and not insert anything here . And tell, what forces us to improve more than competition? Why play better when you will get prize anyway?

I upvoted you because you have the right sentiment imo. Special prices for black people or people with red hair would be ridiculous and those groups are even more underrepresented than women are. The thing is though that women have it harder in chess the same way as in boxing, tennis or sprinting. People try to run circles about the fact that there are very significant biological differences which influence performan…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN