English Chess Forum

More evidence that the ECF doesn't take women seriously: in the rules posted at http://englishchess.org.uk/Juniors/girl ... mpionship/ there are multiple references to 'he' and 'him'.

I could get pretty annoyed by this. Even more so if I were a woman.

Ian Kingston wrote:More evidence that the ECF doesn't take women seriously: in the rules posted at http://englishchess.org.uk/Juniors/girl ... mpionship/ there are multiple references to 'he' and 'him'.

I could get pretty annoyed by this. Even more so if I were a woman.

Apologies for that, in my haste to promote the event whilst answering hundreds of e-mails and numerous phone calls in my new role as Junior Director the rules weren't changed to reflect it being a girls event. I can't speak for other members of the ECF but I most certainly do take girls and women players seriously and in addition to this event (which I can't take credit for as the organising pre-dates my election) there will be a 5th London Chess Classic Women's International in December,once again funded by myself, but of course made possible thanks to the Classic organisers providing both the venue and arbiting team.

LawrenceCooper wrote: Apologies for that, in my haste to promote the event whilst answering hundreds of e-mails and numerous phone calls in my new role as Junior Director the rules weren't changed to reflect it being a girls event.

Why though are the chess rules non-standard? I'm thinking of the requirement to keep score (not required under rapid-play) and the unusual approach to claiming draws in the last two minutes?

http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php ... 7&start=15

Thanks for the prompt change. This is one issue that really irks me, and I know that you do take this seriously.

Roger de Coverly wrote:

LawrenceCooper wrote: Apologies for that, in my haste to promote the event whilst answering hundreds of e-mails and numerous phone calls in my new role as Junior Director the rules weren't changed to reflect it being a girls event.

Why though are the chess rules non-standard? I'm thinking of the requirement to keep score (not required under rapid-play) and the unusual approach to claiming draws in the last two minutes?

http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php ... 7&start=15

I will also ask for clarification about these points. For now, could we at least try and be positive that the event is taking place?

Ian, you are not a woman, you are a valued colleague.

James Pratt wrote:Ian, you are not a woman, you are a valued colleague.

I'll let my wife know.

Ian Kingston wrote:Thanks for the prompt change. This is one issue that really irks me, and I know that you do take this seriously.

sorry, but why did you use 'irk' and not 'irritate' or annoy'?

soheil_hooshdaran wrote:

Ian Kingston wrote:Thanks for the prompt change. This is one issue that really irks me, and I know that you do take this seriously.

sorry, but why did you use 'irk' and not 'irritate' or annoy'?

I can't say for sure because it wasn't a conscious choice.

soheil_hooshdaran wrote:

Ian Kingston wrote:Thanks for the prompt change. This is one issue that really irks me, and I know that you do take this seriously.

sorry, but why did you use 'irk' and not 'irritate' or annoy'?

Probably because it requires less typing

Greg Breed wrote:

soheil_hooshdaran wrote:

Ian Kingston wrote:Thanks for the prompt change. This is one issue that really irks me, and I know that you do take this seriously.

sorry, but why did you use 'irk' and not 'irritate' or annoy'?

Probably because it requires less typing

Typing is irksome.

Ian Kingston wrote:Thanks for the prompt change. This is one issue that really irks me, and I know that you do take this seriously.

soheil_hooshdaran wrote:sorry, but why did you use 'irk' and not 'irritate' or annoy'?

Greg Breed wrote:Probably because it requires less typing

Ian Kingston wrote:Typing is irksome.