Men and Women Play Chess at the Same Level Why Segregate Them?

@michuk said in #40:
> @kajalmaya used the term stochastic when I was talking about a normal distribution, that is not precise.

As far as I can see, @kajalmaya, whom you attacked for it, didn't use the term "stochastic" at all.
Only @Enthorian did in posting #21. If you want to argue his usage was wrong, you should probably define "stochastic" first. I know of varying definitions, and the two of you may have different ones in mind.

> I'm being gaslit in broad day light lol

Or is it maybe possible that you made a mistake you don't want to admit?

@michuk said in #14:
> FIDE has separate titles, events and prize money for women. The open events are there but the inherent rating gap means top women players don't get invited much to the elite chess invitationals where guys with excessive amounts of Elo compete for huge sums of money. It's like a chess cartel.
>
> The top women are left with effectively one choice, play women-only events to win the much smaller top prizes.
>
> Elite chess players make their money from invitationals not opens.

And what solution do you propose to it? If you just ban women-only events all the top players would be men. Where does that leaves women?

@LukaCro said in #42:
> And what solution do you propose to it? If you just ban women-only events all the top players would be men. Where does that leaves women?

We incentivise women to play in open events by having both a women's only prize system and an open event prize in the same event like how Gibraltar Open is done. Women compete on the same basis as men and get paired with men and women but there is a set of prizes for women as well as the open prizes.

It works quite well

@michuk said in #43:
> We incentivise women to play in open events by having both a women's only prize system and an open event prize in the same event like how Gibraltar Open is done. Women compete on the same basis as men and get paired with men and women but there is a set of prizes for women as well as the open prizes.
>
> It works quite well

Yeah, this seems right

@JSM2 said in #41:
> As far as I can see, @kajalmaya, whom you attacked for it, didn't use the term "stochastic" at all.
> Only @Enthorian did in posting #21. If you want to argue his usage was wrong, you should probably define "stochastic" first. I know of varying definitions, and the two of you may have different ones in mind.
>
>
>
> Or is it maybe possible that you made a mistake you don't want to admit?

@kajalmaya said I didn't use statistical terms precisely, that refers to @Enthorian post.

Stochastic has one definition in this context and wasn't used correctly since FIDE use a normal distribution, and I corrected his use of that term, so instead of admitting it he turns the tables and says I did not use correct terms. This is the forum equivalent of "being in the Tall Grass". You can't keep gaslighting on this lol

I shudder to think you might actually have taught statistics.

@AceRimmer said in #46:
> I shudder to think you might actually have taught statistics.

Yes statistics is not an easy subject. Many use it to make incorrect assertions about chess performances.

As you try to shame me on this forum, D Gukesh has score 8 wins and a draw and Kiolbasa Oliwia wins 9 games in a row.

Now here's a challenge for you to answer, which one of those performances is greater?
If you can grace us with your statistical analysis for your answer, instead of vague statements.

I shudder to think of your answer.

it is obviously condescending and patronising to have women only competitions , I'm suppressed that feminists and female chess players are not pushing to remove such patriarchal archaic structures, the silence is deafening.

@sausage4mash said in #48:
> it is obviously condescending and patronising to have women only competitions , I'm suppressed that feminists and female chess players are not pushing to remove such patriarchal archaic structures, the silence is deafening.

Or is it condescending and patronising to ignore what women chess players actually want? You know that women are perfectly free to play in open tournaments and not in womens' tournaments as Judit Polgar did, but only a very small number choose to do so.

In general, the fact that this question keeps coming up as a complaint about "segregation" is weird. There are lots of ways that people are excluded from chess tournaments. By age, by rating, by nationality, by location, by continent, and probably others. Yet it only seems to get perceived as a problem on forums like this when it's men being excluded.