Female Player Rule

[Jonathan Rogers]

I'll keep mulling it over. There is more than one possibility, as this thread shows.

[Peter Rhodes]

I had an idea I thought I might share.

The problem as I see it is that you want to encourage women's chess, but the tools you currently have "awarding match penalties/bonuses etc" at your disposal are quite large and cumbersome - rather like a surgeon operating with a hammer and chisel.

Why not introduce a change whereby a win for a woman player gives slightly more than the full point ?

I don't know how much you would make it - 1.5 points, 1.1 points 1.01 points ? I don't know, but it would certainly incentivise captains to play a woman player BUT there would be no penalty for not doing so. In a drawn match - that board could make all the difference.

Who knows, it might even be worthwhile to play more than one woman and go for double bonus !! (assuming they win of course). That is a decision each captain could take into account as part of his strategy.

It then follows that you could fine tune this value from experience or concensus.

[Ola Winfridsson]

Why not introduce a change whereby a win for a woman player gives slightly more than the full point ?

I don't know how much you would make it - 1.5 points, 1.1 points 1.01 points ? I don't know, but it would certainly incentivise captains to play a woman player BUT there would be no penalty for not doing so. In a drawn match - that board could make all the difference.

Who knows, it might even be worthwhile to play more than one woman and go for double bonus !! (assuming they win of course). That is a decision each captain could take into account as part of his strategy.

It then follows that you could fine tune this value from experience or concensus.

I'm not sure this solves the 'problem' since that would place an extra emphasis on finding a (very) strong female player, rather than encouraging female participation in general and British females in particular, to ensure that you get that 1+ point. Such a rule would probably just see more foreign female players being roped in.

[Rob Thompson]

give slightly more than 0.5 for a draw as well? this would also give the relevant captain a bonus for playing female players

[Peter Rhodes]

I'm not sure this solves the 'problem' since that would place an extra emphasis on finding a (very) strong female player, rather than encouraging female participation in general

Hi Ola, thanks for your reply,

yes thinking about it there probably will be a trend to recruit stronger female players - but that is of course affected by the value given to a "female win" which obviously needs to be delicately balanced.

Isn't the issue of mismatched (rating difference) players one that can be addressed by this anyway ? Bear in mind that every player has a natural division and board level in the 4NCL where he/she is not going to get slaughtered in twenty moved. Wouldn't this solution prevent a "lower" 4NCL team meeting a far stronger one, and having a female player on the bottom board that gets slaughtered.

I think it is possible - if the win value is not tuned correctly, you might have lower female participation overall, but then again - that is because this system is partly a compromise, and also because female participation is a problem anyway.


Yes, there will be weaker 4NCL teams that won't field a female player but they won't be penalised they simply will be unable to get the bonus points available to other teams. I don't think this idea can solve the endemic problems that already exist, it's simply a tool that has more scope for "tuning" than the other blunt instruments available.

[Ben Purton]

You could adopt:

1) It as a pure tie breaker. So game points dont matter as strong as Amount of matches when fielding a female, if this was tied then game points etc etc.

2) I think you could extend current rules to have 2 "No female tokens" per season for a team, so if they have a weekend leway in respects to finding a player for the board.

3) Rule that allows captains to agree to play 7 boards(not pref)


But I believe these could work in some way.

Kind regards

Ben

[Alan Walton]

There isn't a problem with having a female player rule, the main problem is how it is currently being exploited by some female players.

Knowing that teams are forced to have a female player, it is giving them the power and unjust power of asking for conditions, and for purely amateur teams this is an unacceptable cost.

And, you could start arguing that the rule is discriminating against the 2100+ amateur males players who may be missing out on the opportunities of the top division.

My view would be to just have an open league, and get the best chess players playing in the best league in the uk. By the way have people seen the standard of chess on the bottom board of the top division, alot of it is going on poor to awful.

Alan

[Peter Rhodes]

It would be interesting to hear from one of the female players asking for such conditions.

If, some of these games are just whitewashes between very strong players, and a much weaker player, as some reports suggest then it may be that they feel that they are just wasting a weekend as it is, and that they feel the out-of-pocket expenses (travel+accomodation) are justified ?

I don't know - I'm just guessing, but I know from experience that playing an opponent far stronger than you, where the difference in playing strength is so great you are unlikely to learn much, is not particularly enjoyable.

[LozCooper]

It would be interesting to hear from one of the female players asking for such conditions.

If, some of these games are just whitewashes between very strong players, and a much weaker player, as some reports suggest then it may be that they feel that they are just wasting a weekend as it is, and that they feel the out-of-pocket expenses (travel+accomodation) are justified ?

I don't know - I'm just guessing, but I know from experience that playing an opponent far stronger than you, where the difference in playing strength is so great you are unlikely to learn much, is not particularly enjoyable.

One or two I've spoken to have said precisely this. They've been asked to play for a team whose players they don't know. It may cost them £40-50 on travel (train+taxis) plus £40-50 for a night's accommodation plus food etc

It is a difficult situation. I'd like as many girls/women playing chess as possible but realise not all can afford to play without assistance. Equally, I'm sure there are some who can afford it but choose to ask for expenses anyway. I also understand it's a difficult task for captains to juggle female players so they all get games without risking leaving your team without sufficient cover.

[Alan Walton]

Loz,

My view is why should somebody rated lower than myself get paid for playing in the 4NCL, especially in the top division. Shouldn't this be a privilege for these players to get that opportunity and chances for better games, even opportunities for Norms

I have to pay my own way in all weekends of the 4NCL, so I cannot see why the female players should be paid, unless of course you are titled already (say GM/IM/FM etc)

That's why I believe there should be total equality in a semi-professional league, and only titled players commanding a fee, irrespective of gender

Alan

[Adam Raoof]

Loz,

My view is why should somebody rated lower than myself get paid for playing in the 4NCL, especially in the top division. Shouldn't this be a privilege for these players to get that opportunity and chances for better games, even opportunities for Norms

I have to pay my own way in all weekends of the 4NCL, so I cannot see why the female players should be paid, unless of course you are titled already (say GM/IM/FM etc)

That's why I believe there should be total equality in a semi-professional league, and only titled players commanding a fee, irrespective of gender

Alan

There is a slight difference between paying players, and covering their expenses. One reason that I don't play in the 4NCl is the cost, though it's mainly the time I would have to commit to playing to do it justice. Covering expenses seems only reasonable if it supports the particpation of juniors or female players. In general I have no problems with the principle of paying players, and it's none of my business who pays who, or why. But if anyone wants another player.... 2149, 185 ECF

[Roger de Coverly]

I also understand it's a difficult task for captains to juggle female players so they all get games without risking leaving your team without sufficient cover.

Chess competitions usually have long standing rules about only being able to play for one "club" during the season and the 4NCL is no exception. However in the early days of the 4NCL was it not a complete free for all? I think that was stopped (and the squad rules introduced) when players started to object to meeting the same players twice in a season playing for different "clubs".

But why not look to the rules of professional football and introduce the concept of "players on loan". As I understand it, if a team with a big squad has players who are not being selected for the main team, then they can be lent to other clubs, usually those in lower divisions who then pay the wages. So the 4NCL rule would be that players could be lent for a weekend from division 1 teams to otherwise unconnected division 3 (or possibly division 2) teams.

so I cannot see why the female players should be paid,

That's in part a consequence of the rules on defaults, since the sporting and financial penalties for not showing up with even a token player are quite severe.

[IM Jack Rudd]

Well, Bristol could certainly find room for a player of that strength in our first team.

[LozCooper]

Loz,

My view is why should somebody rated lower than myself get paid for playing in the 4NCL, especially in the top division. Shouldn't this be a privilege for these players to get that opportunity and chances for better games, even opportunities for Norms

I have to pay my own way in all weekends of the 4NCL, so I cannot see why the female players should be paid, unless of course you are titled already (say GM/IM/FM etc)

That's why I believe there should be total equality in a semi-professional league, and only titled players commanding a fee, irrespective of gender

Alan

Alan,

It's hard to argue against that point and I understand your point of view. I take the attitude though that when I play 4NCL I don't expect to be paid (which is just as well because I doubt anyone would pay me!) and whilst I may be higher rated than the majority of women and juniors I don't mind them being given preferential treatment if it encourages them to play more meaning the more that play the better the chance we have of producing stronger players in higher numbers. Admittedly, I'm mainly an organiser rather than a player so my priorities are different to yours.

I guess when the league started there were only six teams so it wasn't a problem to find a female player. Once the number of teams esculated it obviously became more difficult hence the eventual introduction of the junior option which gave teams a legal alternative.

[Alex Holowczak]

I take the attitude though that when I play 4NCL I don't expect to be paid (which is just as well because I doubt anyone would pay me!)

I was informed that Moin pays you to play for West Bromwich in the Birmingham League. Maybe you should get him in charge of a 4NCL team?