Let the games begin
I agree with # 4, what if the top woman takes one of the top 5 places in the tournament, is she even awarded that prize? Furthermore, I agree with # 8, why different levels of prizes for the general classification / women?
I believe they would get both prizes yes.
While I understand the purpose of having women's prizes, it does seem a little unfair that the highest placing women could get a higher value prize than the fourth or fifth ranked person even if they come much lower than either of those places. Out of curiosity, what is the highest ranking that a woman player has achieved in any of these? Or even just the last few?
It might be worth considering a different system of competitions in these kind of tournaments where prizes are awarded. Or would Award require a certain number of games played.
There have always been prizes for women, the same prizes as there are for everyone. So are we no longer treating women as equal on lichess? I would have though lichess would be free from this kind of gender / identity politics. This seems like a disturbing trend to me.
Would love to see how women feel about this. Bet they might feel insulted. Either way, maybe this is to encourage stronger level women to play? Edited to fix typo
Lets be realistic, no offence to any woman but no one has a chance to win this tournament, finishing top 15 would be a huge miracle, the only woman who can win this tournament is @LeelaChess but she is not human isn't she?, i support this prizes 100%
It's either separating by gender so women can win at all, or accepting that 99% of women will not finish in the top 20. Tough choice.
I think the number of games that have been played should also decide when awarding a prize. For example: If the tournament lasts for 2 hours, the award criterion would also include the fact that the female chess player has played at least 10 games.