Invisible Pieces: Women in Chess

It was supposed to be a chess site not these SJW crap.

#355 #356
It was meant to be a leftist website. Politics was never really separate.

You think this is capitalism? You aren't paying a penny for this site. Why you aren't on chess.com spending your money on a premium membership right now is beyond me.

This site will most likely continue to promote many of the causes it has promoted in the past: Climate change, the fight against racism, and the fight against sexism (and probably many more, but there are the ones I remember).

@yes_i_am_bad
Its not an inherently SJW matter- its method of presentation, comments are a bit sad- men self flagellating, claiming sexism is the only cause of discrepancy, rather than providing a good method to increase female participation [ though should we really care if women are interested or not in a specific field, or sport ].
Id say online resources are pretty gender neutral- right?
And unless explicitly stated, gender isnt even brought up in most convos or forums on this site. Then why the lack of interest from women?
Giving some plausible solutions rather than name calling will lead to a much faster, accepted "solution" for this "problem"

I was thinking it would be relatively simple to do a variation of the Italian paper comparing performance of women vs. men and women vs. women by looking e.g. at historical GM game data. But I hit the following :
Lets assume there is a performance hit due to the 'gender effect' - when woman plays man she loses X points (on average) due to this effect while when playing a woman she does not.
The woman plays against both men and women until reaching a stable rating.
She is 'really' X points better than her rating shows - but how can we see this effect?
When playing against women of same rating , her expectation is 0.5 , since both women are X above their reported rating.
When playing against men of same rating, here expectation is 0.5 since her X point 'real' advantage has been neutralized by the gender effect.
Perhaps the Italian scheme of games where the players don't know gender of opponent, is the only way?

I'm a female chess player. And I've run a chess-positive stream for years where I refuse to play anywhere but Lichess and hype them when appropriate. I don't know why I do this though because the community detests me.

A few months ago I went to the Discord to complain about some nasty sexist comments on the Lichess server in a tournament chat. They ended up arguing with me relentlessly; they tore me a new one. And then they banned me from their Discord server. They said the ban would be removed once everything settled down though.

That was a year ago. They haven't done anything. They don't really care at all and its the most disappointed I think I have ever been with anyone. All they had to do was NOT ban the female chess player who makes a free show about their site.

In Serbia, after WWII, before the fall of the UDSSR, every student in school had to play chess. Girls and boys, no differences. Thats a good approach imo. Make it a mandatory class in school. Chess is good for the brain and fun, there are no downsides.

Your approach is 100% egalitarian? Go through with it consequently, don't p**** out, and see what happens. You will soon learn that even in a world that had this approach for several generations there will still be major differences between persons that were born with a penis and persons that were born with a vagina, doesn't matter how you label them.

And that's a good thing.