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?
Counterintuitive economics of a chess tournament
11–20 of 51 posts
Re: Counterintuitive economics of a chess tournament
#12"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...
Please note that I am against extra prizes (because of private bits or skin colour) in open tournaments. Women can have their titles, their own tournaments, their own prizes ( in their tournaments) as long as men can have same. I just request everyone be treated same in tournament where everyone is alowed and fights free for all ( if tournament is split into two separate groups - prizes can be different too)
Re: Counterintuitive economics of a chess tournament
#13Earlier 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.
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 minorities than without it.
I like to think of positive discrimination as a cosine wave that cancels out the sine wave of sexism/racism/etc.
If you think positive discrimination is a bad thing then I suggest you work on getting rid of the negative discrimination, and the 'problem' will magically resolve itself.
Re: Counterintuitive economics of a chess tournament
#14I'm not sure that it makes a difference in this case, but it is insufficient in situations such as these to look at just the expected return. A rational agent's actions are determined by expected utility , which could be highly non-linear depending on myriad factors such as the player's net worth. i.e. it could be rational to trade a lower chance of the largest payoff for a more consistent payoff of a lesser but stil…
See the St Petersburg paradox for a good example of this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Petersburg_paradox
Another example that we all participate in is insurance. We all make an expected loss on insurance, but we lower the variance of our outgoings by doing it, so most of us are happy to take the hit.
Re: Counterintuitive economics of a chess tournament
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
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...
Please note that I am against extra prizes (because of private bits or skin colour) in open tournaments. Women can have their titles, their own tournaments, their own prizes ( in their tournaments) as long as men can have same. I just request everyone be treated same in tournament where everyone is alowed and fights free for all ( if tournament is split into two separate groups - prizes can be different too)
I see - then we are in agreement.
Re: Counterintuitive economics of a chess tournament
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
What are you referring to? The phrase 'Top female prize' appears nowhere on the linked page.
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?
Re: Counterintuitive economics of a chess tournament
#17Earlier 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…
> all the positive discrimination is doing is countering the negative prejudices
IMHO positive discrimination might only reinforce those prejudices.
"Haha, look at those women, they need a head start!"
"Damm, women are so weak they need lower standards to join the firefighters."
"Women need their own separate tournaments because they couldn't even face the worst male team."
All things I heard.
I'm pretty sure there is discrimination around. I'm just not sure positive discrimination helps at all, or only makes us feel like we're doing something.
On the other hand, female-only tournaments (like in some sports) encourage the underrepresented gender to participate, since they're more likely to succeed and feel like they can achieve something, and then maybe get to the same level as males in the long run.
It's a complex problem, though. Teenage females are, on average, slower when running than their male counterparts, and this won't change no matter how much positive discrimination you throw at it. I feel like a bigot just by saying it but, hey, I think it's true and it's been proven (e.g. soccer USWNT scrimmaged against the U-17 USMNT and was beaten 8-2, purely by physical advantage). Sometimes life itself discriminates and IMHO we have to accept it too. Maybe positive discrimination is the only way to work around it? How are we going to get rid of the biological discrimination, to then then get rid of the positive discrimination? I don't think we can. I think we just have to accept it and normalize it and be fine with each person having different aptitudes and traits.
Unfortunately I don't have any alternative methods to get rid of negative discrimination :( I like to think this is an education issue that will get fixed over generations and, in my eyes, it's indeed slowly getting fixed (unless some event sets the progress back, like it's happened in history multiple times... that's what we'd have to work against.)
I like to think my country (Spain) is pretty progressive on getting rid of discrimination, be it gay, female, racial, etc. I think we've come a long way on getting rid of it, and I think education (e.g. TV shows including gay people) was the only factor that helped. I mention gay people because we're one of the most progressive countries on that regard and, indeed, the problem wasn't solved by positive discrimination but, simply, by normalization.
Change came from heroes setting example, not underdogs in need of help.
Re: Counterintuitive economics of a chess tournament
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> all the positive discrimination is doing is countering the negative prejudices IMHO positive discrimination might only reinforce those prejudices. "Haha, look at those women, they need a head start!" "Damm, women are so weak they need lower standards to join the firefighters." "Women need their own separate tournaments because they couldn't even face the worst male team." All things I heard. I'm pretty sure there i…
IMHO positive discrimination might only reinforce those prejudices.
"Haha, look at those women, they need a head start!"
"Damm, women are so weak they need lower standards to join the firefighters."
"Women need their own separate tournaments because they couldn't even face the worst male team."
All things I heard.
Which is why, as an enlightened and intelligent person, when you hear things like that it's your job to point out that the positive discrimination is only necessary because of the negative attitudes people have towards minority groups. All the remarks you heard are examples of negative, sexist discrimination. We should all be willing to speak out against it, and all work to resolve the issue of inequality. And that includes defending positive discrimination for the good it does.
Re: Counterintuitive economics of a chess tournament
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
> all the positive discrimination is doing is countering the negative prejudices IMHO positive discrimination might only reinforce those prejudices. "Haha, look at those women, they need a head start!" "Damm, women are so weak they need lower standards to join the firefighters." "Women need their own separate tournaments because they couldn't even face the worst male team." All things I heard. I'm pretty sure there i…
IMHO positive discrimination might only reinforce those prejudices. "Haha, look at those women, they need a head start!" "Damm, women are so weak they need lower standards to join the firefighters." "Women need their own separate tournaments because they couldn't even face the worst male team." All things I heard. Which is why, as an enlightened and intelligent person, when you hear things like that it's your job to…
Did you read the rest of my comment?
> And that includes defending positive discrimination for the good it does.
Does it? I feel you think that's an axiom. Is it? You didn't argue why, and it's the crux of my comment: if it does good or not. I'm not convinced it does good (or bad), but you seem so convinced I hoped you could answer my comment instead of reinstating how good you think positive discrimination is.
I'll quote myself:
> How are we going to get rid of the biological discrimination, to then then get rid of the positive discrimination? I don't think we can. I think we just have to accept it and normalize it and be fine with each person having different aptitudes and traits.
I invite you to read my comment carefully and reflect on it. IMHO it's not an issue as simple as you seem to think it is. And if it is, please enlighten me (I'm genuinely open to it!)
Re: Counterintuitive economics of a chess tournament
#20Earlier 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"
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?