Women's In-Tournament Training

[Roger de Coverly]

Roger, a highest placed welsh would be fine as I've paid to enter in the first place. My issue was with women who pay nothing yet walk away with something.

Financially equivalent though. Suppose the entry fee is £25 for everyone, whether Welsh or not. There's a £ 100 best Welsh prize. Four Welsh players appear. So you've got £100 in entry fees, but one or more of them is going to take or share the Welsh prize of £100. Perhaps they all get equal scores and each get their £ 25 back.

I suppose the difference is that restricted prizes are usually of nominal or symbolic value only, whereas free entry has a cost if taken up by numbers of people.

[Louise Sinclair]

So, Louise and Alan - if you were under any illusion until now I can tell you as an observer of this thread that you are negative and not just a little negative, but well over the top negative. Why don't you come up with some alternative ideas and implement them yourself to improve women's chess

I promote chess for players. The Sam Black Blitz is my baby and everyone is welcome to play. That is not a negative stance. I will not patronise groups of people by offering them special conditions.
Last Friday I held a meeeting of our sub comittee to discuss ways of improving our tournament. We already offer a loyalty discount to encourage entrants to play the following year. Further ideas and incentives were discussed and we dropped one prize because a fellow comittee member rightly pointed out that people were paying an entry fee but could only win this particular prize if they were a member of the North Circular Chess League.
However I expect my efforts will attract the over used word "negative" have any of you ever consulted a thesaurus? it is refreshing to hear an alternative phrase rather then the ubiquitous negative word.
I will never promote womens chess because I view it as unethical and I'm sure you would rather I remain principled and honest then swaying with popular opinion

[Gareth Harley-Yeo]

Roger, a highest placed welsh would be fine as I've paid to enter in the first place. My issue was with women who pay nothing yet walk away with something.

Financially equivalent though. Suppose the entry fee is £25 for everyone, whether Welsh or not. There's a £ 100 best Welsh prize. Four Welsh players appear. So you've got £100 in entry fees, but one or more of them is going to take or share the Welsh prize of £100. Perhaps they all get equal scores and each get their £ 25 back.

Isuppose the difference is that restricted prizes are usually of nominal or symbolic value only, whereas free entry has a cost if taken up by numbers of people.

But, these 4 welsh players have paid and therefore should be eligible for any prizes on offer. 3 of who will possibly walk away £25 worse off having not won anything. Women on the other hand have not had to dip into their purses. If they play badly they are no worse off.

A female prize just like your example of a Welsh prize is much fairer than free entry to a selected group. That said, as previously mentioned I'm in favour of Sean's initiative.

[Louise Sinclair]

Louise - I think this is the point you are missing. From a commercial point of view the women as a whole are not contributing equally,the majority are not contributing at all - they are not playing chess/entering tournaments, a very high percentage of entry fees come from men

I'm not missing any point - the women are not being forced to stay away from chess events. They are welcome to arrive in force at our event but I will not have the other players subsidising the costs. It would breed resentment and that is an emotion I don't want associated with an event I'm responsible for.I call antagonising your main clients bad businness.
Incidentally we offer large prizes and usually show a profit so I'm doing something right.
Louise

[Louise Sinclair]

complain to the CEO of the ECF but don't take it out on Sabrina

Maria
Follow through this thread - it was Sabrina who made personal observations about my hormone balance and how I should have spent my childhood playing with more girls. I hardly think I made personal observations at her expense.
In fact one remark from her to me was removed from the thread.
Louise

[LozCooper]

Louise - I think this is the point you are missing. From a commercial point of view the women as a whole are not contributing equally,the majority are not contributing at all - they are not playing chess/entering tournaments, a very high percentage of entry fees come from men

I'm not missing any point - the women are not being forced to stay away from chess events. They are welcome to arrive in force at our event but I will not have the other players subsidising the costs. It would breed resentment and that is an emotion I don't want associated with an event I'm responsible for.I call antagonising your main clients bad businness.
Incidentally we offer large prizes and usually show a profit so I'm doing something right.
Louise

You will also find that Sean has enjoyed some degree of success as an organiser to the extent that his tournaments were voted the best in the UK. Rather than criticising his policies (which are further evidence of his many innovative ideas to increase the number of players supporting his events) is it beyond you to give credit to anyone but yourself and the North Circular Chess League? You, your league and your tournaments may be wonderful and the best things ever but does it mean that everyone and everything else deserves to be treated with such contempt?

[Maria Yurenok]

Louise, I have read the whole thread and there was sufficient provocation on your part for Sabrina to respond to. Since you are clearly not interested in women's chess, what's the purpose of making posts in women's chess section? You are not offering a healthy debate because you are not offering any alternatives to improving women's chess while disagreeing with Sabrina's undertaking. We are not here to discuss whether women's chess should exist or not (it already does) and even though you are entitled to your view that it shouldn't exist - it's completely irrelevant to the original topic in this thread. What would be relevant is if you suggested workable options to improve women's chess but we've already established that you are not interested in that.

[David Shepherd]

Louise - I think this is the point you are missing. From a commercial point of view the women as a whole are not contributing equally,the majority are not contributing at all - they are not playing chess/entering tournaments, a very high percentage of entry fees come from men

I'm not missing any point - the women are not being forced to stay away from chess events. They are welcome to arrive in force at our event but I will not have the other players subsidising the costs. It would breed resentment and that is an emotion I don't want associated with an event I'm responsible for.I call antagonising your main clients bad businness.
Incidentally we offer large prizes and usually show a profit so I'm doing something right.
Louise

Louise I am glad that women are welcome at your events and understand your resentment arguement, it is a bit similar to the banks and building societies offering extra interest to new customers which I find annoying but it still makes commercial sense to them as they feel what they gain is more than what they lose.

[Louise Sinclair]

You will also find that Sean has enjoyed some degree of success as an organiser to the extent that his tournaments were voted the best in the UK. Rather than criticising his policies (which are further evidence of his many innovative ideas to increase the number of players supporting his events) is it beyond you to give credit to anyone but yourself and the North Circular Chess League? You, your league and your tournaments may be wonderful and the best things ever but does it mean that everyone and everything else deserves to be treated with such contempt?

LozCooper

I seem to recall wishing Sean the best for his tournament earlier today. I hope Sean does very well and I'm sure that his tournaments are excellent events. However I disagree with singling out a group for special treatment. That opposing view is not indicative of contempt for Sean but a simple difference of opinion as I think he is aware.
However opposing views do attract contempt from others - not Sean who has behaved with impecable courtesy
Louise

[Carl Hibbard]

I am still quite willing to offer a hand of friendship over this matter to Sabrina, as I have done so on two previous occasions in this thread, but as yet to no avail.

Have I not clearly and in a polite way asked that "we" all move on from this or are you just trying to be a pain?

[Louise Sinclair]

it is a bit similar to the banks and building societies offering extra interest to new customers which I find annoying but it still makes commercial sense to them as they feel what they gain is more than what they lose.

In general banks and building societies are operating something of a cartel. There is little to choose between them in terms of service unless you bank with a merchant bank such as Hoars, Drummonds or Coutts. The rest are offering generic products while switching clients back and forth in a similar fashion to insurance companies.
It is difficult to compare the financial service industry which many find indispensable to a chess tourney which can afford to be very different to other tournaments and has greater potential to develop it's own individualistic character.
Louise

[LozCooper]

ou will also find that Sean has enjoyed some degree of success as an organiser to the extent that his tournaments were voted the best in the UK. Rather than criticising his policies (which are further evidence of his many innovative ideas to increase the number of players supporting his events) is it beyond you to give credit to anyone but yourself and the North Circular Chess League? You, your league and your tournaments may be wonderful and the best things ever but does it mean that everyone and everything else deserves to be treated with such contempt?

LozCooper


I seem to recall wishing Sean the best for his tournament earlier today. I hope Sean does very well and I'm sure that his tournaments are excellent events. However I disagree with singling out a group for special treatment. That opposing view is not indicative of contempt for Sean but a simple difference of opinion as I think he is aware.
However opposing views do attract contempt from others - not Sean who has behaved with impecable courtesy
Louise

Given you called his policy "antagonising your main clients bad businness" I agree completely that Sean has been very generous in not taking you to task himself. As he is very busy organising the e2e4 Uxbridge International and then travelling to be an arbiter at the European Individual I thought it only fair to defend him as you will notice I continue to do with anyone who I consider to be unfairly attacked on here, be it Sabrina or Sean or anyone else. If you or Alan consider me to be committing a crime by continuing to do so then that is your problem but I'm fed up with those who do good for English chess being constantly criticised by those who have nothing helpful or positive to contribute.

[Maria Yurenok]

I'd like to say the words of support for Sabrina, Sean and Jovanka. It's great that they are inventing and trying something new. It may work or it may not, but if nothing new is attempted - there'd be no progress in women's chess while that progress is badly needed. I would have liked to play this weekend if I wasn't recovering from the flu, but it's great to hear that the tournament is full anyway and promising to be a success which it rightly deserves.

[IanDavis]

Given you called his policy "antagonising your main clients bad businness" I agree completely that Sean has been very generous in not taking you to task himself. As he is very busy organising the e2e4 Uxbridge International and then travelling to be an arbiter at the European Individual I thought it only fair to defend him as you will notice I continue to do with anyone who I consider to be unfairly attacked on here, be it Sabrina or Sean or anyone else. If you or Alan consider me to be committing a crime by continuing to do so then that is your problem but I'm fed up with those who do good for English chess being constantly criticised by those who have nothing helpful or positive to contribute.

I think people are entitled to discuss their ideological viewpoints without being daemonised. There has to be room for more than 1 way of thinking.

More tea is clearly needed in this thread.

[Carl Hibbard]

More tea is clearly needed in this thread.

A lot of that goes on behind the scenes were nobody notices me intervening, however in this case I am not far off losing it...