What about the men who play chess?


queens

The Fédération Internationale des Échecs (FIDE) has foolishly scheduled the world chess championships for Tehran, Iran, which has declared that The Islamic Republic … demands even non-Muslims visiting Iran to wear the hijab. This is contemptible, and we should not tolerate that kind of sexist imposition. People are planning to boycott the event. However, I’ve noticed something peculiar about the reporting of this boycott.

“Top female chess players in the world say they won’t compete in Iran if they’re forced to wear the Islamic headscarf,” says The Atlantic.

The Independent declares, “Female chess players from around world outraged after being told to wear hijabs at tournament in Tehran.”

“Female chess players protest wearing hijab at Iran world championship,” says CNN.

Hey, I say, what about the men? Shouldn’t the male grandmasters also be announcing their solidarity with their colleagues?

Perhaps male chess players tend to be insensitive sexists who don’t care what happens to the women players. Or perhaps they are cowards who are relieved that the theocratic rule is going to eliminate much of their competition. Or perhaps journalists assume that only women can get outraged at discrimination against women.

I don’t know. I’m just making reasonable guesses.

Comments

  1. jrkrideau says

    I’d suspect that most male chess players do not really care about anything off the chess board and have not even noticed the kerffufle. Most probably don’t know what a hijab is since it’s not a chess move.

  2. slithey tove (twas brillig (stevem)) says

    I wonder if Queen of Katwe, Phiona Mutesi will be attending. The movie of that name was quite moving and energizing. Cheers for Phiona.
    The frustrated screenwriter in me sees this as inspiration for Queen of Katwe II, where she goes to the championship and refuses to wear the hajib. Still wins the championship to give “the finger”, by body language only, to the Islamic rules that were a complete distraction from the intellectual competition of playing Chess. Maybe by wearing the hajib to get seated at a chess table and then removes it during her first move. But that’s just me sharing that image of protest, never mind my fantasies.
    Discuss among yourselves.

  3. slithey tove (twas brillig (stevem)) says

    tsk tsk PZ, please don’t #whataboutthemen.
    I, for one, think it is awesome that the newsmedia is focusing on the distress among the women chess participants who object to the misogynistic rules being imposed.
    The rules don’t effect the males, so why should they care? other than being empathetic, but chess players are somewhat focused on their own skills being challenged and how to perfect them, so *give em a pass*.
    IMO

  4. Siobhan says

    There really is another angle I discussed in my coverage, too: Iran still has penalties for apostasy and homosexuality. Combined with their secret police, I can’t imagine any player who is LBGTQ or non-Muslim, especially atheist, would feel confident that they are safe in Iran.

  5. fentex says

    As a matter of curiosity; would it offend people for women to be required to wear clothes covering their breasts but not men such that a competition in any nation with that requirement should be boycotted?

    Assuming someone doesn’t have a problem with that requirement, what distinguishes it – as a cultural standard – from a different cultures standard that happens to include a women’s head along with her breasts from another that only objects to her breasts being visible? What pushes one and not the other beyond the pale?

  6. screechymonkey says

    Wow, fentex. You’ve really given us all something to think about.

    Also, like, what if a wizard had a thermonuclear device and the only way to deactivate it was to hold the FIDE event in Tehran? What then, huh?

  7. Ed Seedhouse says

    The particular event in question is the *Women’s* World Championship and men are not invited. The open championship in which women may compete and have but seldom do, will culminate in a deciding match between of 12 games Magnus Carlsen and Sergey Karjaken in New York starting next month.

    Of course many of the women in playing Iran will have male coaches and I agree they should boycott it too, although if the women they coach boycott there won’t be much point in them going.

    There is no evidence that men are better than women at chess, but a lot more men play than women so statistically there are more men in each strength category including the very top. In the history of chess only one woman, Judith Polgar, has been in the top 10, and she was the also for a time youngest person, male or female, to win the open Grandmaster title, at the age of 13. Her record has been surpassed by several boys since then. She retired from active chess at age 40.

  8. taraskan says

    @5 fentex

    If in that event, men could brandish their tackles but women faced restrictions, it would be just as bad, but until that ludicrously bizarre restriction crops up in international news, keep your sea-lioning to yourself. Surely you see the problem when attendence restrictions are mandated along religious lines, and for one sex only? Surely one of these is a societal convention that isn’t technically illegal anywhere important (breast coverage) and the other is upheld only by really tall children in a god-buggering police state?

  9. heligan says

    I’m speaking as a female chessplayer who has competed at an event in Iran…though I am not a qualifier for this Women’s World Championship event (a 64-player knockout).
    In fact there is at least one very vocal male grandmaster, who is supporting the women. This is English GM Nigel Short, who became somewhat infamous for his articles in the magazine New In Chess, dealing with the tricky topic of why women are (very much) under-represented among the top players in the world.
    There is also a petition, started by the US qualifier Nazi Paikidze, which I would encourage people to sign! The link is http://www.change.org/p/stop-women-s-oppression-at-the-world-chess-championship-by-challenging-fide-s-decision.

  10. Ed Seedhouse says

    jrkrideau@1:
    “I’d suspect that most male chess players do not really care about anything off the chess board and have not even noticed the kerffufle. Most probably don’t know what a hijab is since it’s not a chess move.”

    Well, I happen to *know* you are wrong since I frequent several chess websites and discussion forums and every one of them is discussing this. Of course there are many misogynists among chess players, probably about as many per 100 players as there are among 100 men who don’t play chess.

  11. Dark Jaguar says

    Come to think of it, the way that’s phrased does seem to imply they want the men to wear it too. Now that’s an idea for protest. The women don’t show up, and the men are all willingly wearing the hijab as was demanded of them.

  12. fentex says

    Surely you see the problem when attendence restrictions are mandated along religious lines, and for one sex only?.

    Yes, I see the problem and I personally object to what I believe is unwarranted impositions on women, but I also think people have to stop and think about their objections from time to time least they simply echo dogmatic positions.

    I was wondering if anyone was going take the line women’s breasts should not be required to be covered (if men’s are not) but for now that’s another issue and not the point to hand.

    And I also wondered if anyone did have a rigorous argument. The point of …the problem when attendence restrictions are mandated along religious lines isn’t very rigorous to my mind because I don’t think it’s so much the religious as the cultural (obviously a potpourri that rolls religion into it’s mix) and
    I often think how my great grandmother and grandfather would have worn shawls, scarves and hats when out and about even though that custom has passed.

    If I travelled back to their time and were asked to wear a hat when they thought it appropriate should I be offended by their Anglican customs?

    There are perennial debates around the world on the requirements children have to wear what is mandated for them to school and what people ought wear at work, what is a minimal standard for polite society.

    If any part of that can be considered arbitrary, what argument is there against a different arbitrary standard elsewhere?

    Is the argument that head coverings are agreed by both sides to be a symbol of religious obeisance and on that alone rests the objection?

    What if someone asserts it isn’t a religious but a different cultural standard of modesty?

    Might not that transform a principled objection to religious authoritarianism into one of cultural imposition and imperialism?

  13. says

    Ed Seedhouse @ 7:

    The particular event in question is the *Women’s* World Championship and men are not invited.

    Oh yes, so of course, chess players who are men absolutely can’t stand shoulder to shoulder with their colleagues and express outrage over this, no. Goodness, that would be all…enlightened or something. Can’t have men being that.

  14. says

    Dark Jaguar:

    Come to think of it, the way that’s phrased does seem to imply they want the men to wear it too. Now that’s an idea for protest. The women don’t show up, and the men are all willingly wearing the hijab as was demanded of them.

    #Men In Hijab.

  15. Siobhan says

    You’d think the literal execution of apostates would rustle the jimmies of a freethought commentariat. Meh.

  16. Siobhan says

    fentex, it isn’t a custom for wearing a hijab in Iran. It’s law. Under penalty of fines, imprisonment, and whipping.

  17. says

    That it’s the Women’s World Championship only makes it more of an outrage that FIDE decided it was fine to hold it in Iran.

  18. throwaway, butcher of tongues, mauler of metaphor says

    Siobhan @17

    You’d think the literal execution of apostates would rustle the jimmies of a freethought commentariat. Meh.

    Wait, your comment @4 wasn’t responded to, therefore you think we wouldn’t care about the brutal and inhumane treatment of people living in Iran? How much engagement would you like for your detailing of observations about the other deplorable conditions that exist there which would also be worth staging a boycott over before we can once again be considered a suitably freethinking commentariat?

  19. throwaway, butcher of tongues, mauler of metaphor says

    What are some good organizations I can donate to which work to end the human rights abuses of the Iranian government?

    I’ve read a bit on NIAC, and what little I’ve read so far causes some hesitance without some community or more well-read opinions about them.

  20. A. Noyd says

    fentex (#13)

    I also think people have to stop and think about their objections from time to time least they simply echo dogmatic positions.

    Well, lah-de-fucking-dah for you. Tell me, when you show up late to a sports game, do you stop the players to have them warm up all over again?

    Because we have stopped. We have thought. We’ve done it plenty already. And now we can move on to more complex discussions without rehashing the level 101 shit. Just because you weren’t here to see it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

  21. thing3 says

    I have reviewed the list of world chess champions since forever and they are all white males. The present champion is Magnus Carlsen, of Norway. So the argument that the chess champions are trying to exclude genuine competition by allowing the females to boycott seems kind of specious.

  22. Siobhan says

    @throwaway

    People are still talking about the implications of FIDE’s placement as being a strictly women’s issue. I am pointing out a gap in intersectionality here. Apostate/Christian women and LGBTQ women don’t have the benefit of the option to conform to the hijab requirement, because their existence has also been punished by the Revolutionary Guard and/or morality place.

    So yes, I am pointing out that a freethought network ought not to neglect said intersection. Stop thinking of women as being women and nothing else. This issue is an intersectional one and ought to be treated as one.

  23. areonis says

    @thing3

    You’ve been following the list of world chess champions forever and never ran across Vishy Anand? In addition to the good Indian players, there have been several good players from Japan as well.

  24. Ed Seedhouse says

    Caine@14: “Oh yes, so of course, chess players who are men absolutely can’t stand shoulder to shoulder with their colleagues and express outrage over this, no. Goodness, that would be all…enlightened or something. Can’t have men being that.”

    Lots of men are doing just that, including men chess players. Some aren’t. Male chess players can be misogynists too, as I pointed out in the part of the message you didn’t quote. Nowhere in my message did I say or imply that it was OK for men not to care about this and protest it.

  25. taraskan says

    13 fentix:

    I was wondering if anyone was going take the line women’s breasts should not be required to be covered (if men’s are not) but for now that’s another issue and not the point to hand.

    @13

    No, no, no, you can’t have your cake and eat it, too. That is exactly the point you implied, or implied should be discussed, why else would you have said it? Just to sever it completely, I reiterate many places do not include exposed female chests in public lewdness laws, and in places where they are, I suspect they are rarely enforced and/or are rendered moot in those systems through overlapping right-to-breastfeed literature. This is so utterly removed from the principal conversation, it is or is coming dangerously close to a strawman argument.

    And the rest of your post is pretty much sea-lioning, but because it is possible you are unaware what you are doing and since you have the right to understand the charge against you, I’ll leave this explanatory device.

    To a point, everything should be questioned and re-evaluated, sure, but “why do we wear clothes?” is obscene only in its vagueness, and it is in every way as inappropriate to invite comparison with broad idiosyncratic topics like that in an otherwise specific discussion as it is boring to point out religious prescriptions are -gasp- really just a subset of culture.

    It’s rather like showing up to an open town hall on the night they’re doing a collection for hurricane victims, and starting in about statewide tax incentives.

  26. taraskan says

    @ Siobhan

    I’m in agreement. This is even worse than abiding by Putin’s censorship restrictions about LGBTQ in the olympics when it was in Russia. Stupid to set up international events in a place that can arrest and murder you as soon as the cameras stop rolling.

  27. Ed Seedhouse says

    PZ@19
    “That it’s the Women’s World Championship only makes it more of an outrage that FIDE decided it was fine to hold it in Iran.”

    Yes, of course, but FIDE is pretty much only after money. The federation’s voting members are dominantly men from countries where women aren’t treated well. Not condoning it, but there it is.

    However in point of simple fact there are no male competitors that can stand with their female compatriots by boycotting an event that only women are allowed to compete in. You couldn’t have been expected to know that as I don’t think you are a competitive chess player, so I don’t blame you for the mistaken conclusion in your original post, and it’s a natural mistake.

  28. Ed Seedhouse says

    thing3@23:”I have reviewed the list of world chess champions since forever and they are all white males.”

    Vishy Anand, five times world champion is, as has been pointed out, from India and has brown skin. Carlsen became world champion by beating him, and Anand won the next Candidate’s match to challenge Carlsen, also losing that match.

    The first two official World Champions were Jewish in a time when Jewish people were not really considered to be “white”. The second, Lasker, had to flee in his old age from his native Germany under Hitler on account of this. The third world champion, Capablanca, was a Latino, native of Cuba. Several others were Jewish including Mikhail Botvinnik, Robert J. Fischer (ironically a terrible purveyor of antisemitism) and Gary Kasparov.

  29. throwaway, butcher of tongues, mauler of metaphor says

    Siobhan @24

    Stop thinking of women as being women and nothing else.

    *Fatal fucking eyeroll*

    I certainly hope you feel accomplished in your magnanimity towards intersectionality on PZ’s blog. You deserve a pat on the back.

  30. Ed Seedhouse says

    jrkrideau@1: “I’d suspect that most male chess players do not really care about anything off the chess board and have not even noticed the kerffufle.”

    Besides being wrong in point of fact, you are stereotyping chess players in a rather nasty way. Besides being rather decent at competitive chess I was also a rock climber and mountaineer, lead a Union, worked IT in a Public Library, read lots and lots of Science Fiction and Science Fact, have worked to elect left wing politicians of both genders, and obtained my Ham Radio license at 66. I am not unrepresentative of the other strong chess players I know. Certainly a lot of them are jerks and assholes, but so are a lot of any group you care to observe.

    I am also old and fat and ugly. Perhaps you would care to stereotype me about those things, too.

  31. says

    Throwaway @ 31:

    I certainly hope you feel accomplished in your magnanimity towards intersectionality on PZ’s blog.

    When did you start embracing idiocy? It’s Siobhan’s post which was the reason for PZ posting about this in the first damn place. See that pretty first link, in PZ’s post? Did you bother to click it? Did you bother to read? That link is to Siobhan’s blog, right fucking here on FTB:

    Worldwide chess championship to be hosted in Iran, women competing told they “must” wear hijabs.

    Personally, I think you should take Shiv’s advice, and try to think of women as more than women, try thinking of them as people, because most don’t, you know. And don’t go rushing to say “I think women are people!”, because that’s not the same as thinking of women as people all the time, in every possible situation. This is implicit bias, Bayesian priors, which get stuck in every person’s head, whether you want it in there or not.

    Instead of taking the default stupid position, you could have done yourself a great service, by stopping to think, and examine your attitudes, and the thoughts this particular situation have brought up. You could have taken the opportunity to broaden your thinking, and become much more aware of the intersectionality involved. But no, you go with idiot instead.

  32. Lady Mondegreen says

    @fentex

    I think the difference is that hijab is part of an explicitly sexist legal system. The requirement seems less about modesty or custom than signaling female compliance with sex-based injustice.

    Women in the West have sometimes opposed rules requiring them to cover their breasts. But most of the time both sexes do wear tops any place more formal than a beach bbq. Even beachside cafes may require men to wear tops: “No shirt, No shoes, No service”.

  33. says

    @13, fentex

    What if someone asserts it isn’t a religious but a different cultural standard of modesty?

    Then they would be making a distinction without a difference, I think. But even if I’m wrong, it clearly is religious in this case. So that assertion would be just as false as if someone asserted the earth was flat. That’s what.

    Might not that transform a principled objection to religious authoritarianism into one of cultural imposition and imperialism?

    Do you know what is required for something to count as wrongful cultural imposition and imperialism? It requires that the thing being objected to is actually good and fine. In this case, it isn’t good and fine. So objecting to it is the right thing.

    Right?

  34. taraskan says

    Just in case some of the confusion here is from a fixation on the word “boycott”, the linked articles all discuss protests by “female chess players from around the world”. Sure, only enrolled FIDE players can technically boycott the event, but only a small number in protest are actually enrolled in the tournament, and therefore why do headlines not read chess players the world over?

    That is, at least at the start, nobody was limiting this to a discussion of tournament attendees’ actions alone, so don’t start now.

  35. says

    fentex
    #freethenipple
    It’s a thing. Just because you personally haven’t paid attention to it doesn’t mean that women haven’t discussed and also protested it. We regularly discuss how we’re on the one side expected to present our bodies for the male gaze and at the same time shamed for our boobies whenever they don’t serve as boner dispensers, aka when breastfeeding babies.
    Get your head out of your ass and do some reading before you think you have a super duper novel and challenging argument to make to feminists.
    The reason we’Re not talking about western cultural standards here isn’t because we haven’t given them any thoughts but because we already have.

    +++

    Hey, I say, what about the men? Shouldn’t the male grandmasters also be announcing their solidarity with their colleagues?

    Funny thing, it’s a form of solidarity and protest Iranian men show especially on social media to support Iranian women.
    See the thing I wrote above about assuming that people have never thought of your novel idea? This is the very thing. Don’t assume that Iranians haven’t already thought of this just because you haven’t heard of it. Yes, I wished people would pay attention to feminist movements and protests all over the world even when they don’t involve western women.
    Just prove that “feminists only care about pink BIC pens but not about the oppression of women in other countries” is a lie MRAs made up, OK?

    P.S. Siobhan has some pretty good post that would serve people well as a starting point.

  36. tkreacher says

    As to why FIDE would choose Iran, I’ve heard, secondhand, that Iran was the only Country to offer to host. I’m not arguing in favor of holding the competition there or anything, just adding the possibility for context.

  37. ethicsgradient says

    tkreacher @38,
    It’s in the CNN article PZ linked to – “Iran was the only country which made a proposal to host the event, a World Chess Federation (FIDE) spokeswoman told CNN in a statement”, but PZ seems to have forgotten that. Just as his “or perhaps they are cowards who are relieved that the theocratic rule is going to eliminate much of their competition” remark indicates he hadn’t even registered it is the women’s championship.

  38. F.O. says

    BTW, not sure how much this is under the radar in the US, but Iran is enthusiastically supporting Assad in one of the worst crimes of our day, with Obama turning two blind eyes.

    I wonder WTF was FIDE’s rationale for the host choice.

  39. mamba says

    Why are people giving Fentex such a hard time? His question was a valid one.

    We might not like the rules that force hijabs on women, but it’s a law based on their religion.
    As Fentex said (paraphrased), we might not like the fact that women in north america HAVE to cover their breasts, but it’s the law based on our religion. (or at least gender “sensitives”, but irrelevant. point is it’s a law that the country agreed on)

    The 2 scenarios ARE the same…one is just more repressive to women, but NEITHER actually gives a crap what WOMEN wanted when the law was made, and both are punishable by fines and jail time. (we’d do whippings too probably if the men got their way, after all 50 years ago spanking your wife was fine!)

    So really, what did he say that was wrong? He was just pointing out that it’s their country, they can set the law as they see fit, and that we do the exact same thing just to a slightly lesser degree. Is it right? Of course not, women should be allowed to wear or not wear whatever they want…

    …so his point on standing by the women who want to not wear it is valid. Just like those same men should stand by women who want to show their breasts as men are allowed to in our country. Most men that I know are cool with women being topless in public, so his point still stands valid. Culturally they are very similar attitudes, and unless I read it wrong, that’s all he was saying.

    So why the animosity? Fentex, at least I see what you’re trying to say…

  40. throwaway, butcher of tongues, mauler of metaphor says

    Personally, I think you should take Shiv’s advice, and try to think of women as more than women, try thinking of them as people, because most don’t, you know. And don’t go rushing to say “I think women are people!”, because that’s not the same as thinking of women as people all the time, in every possible situation. This is implicit bias, Bayesian priors, which get stuck in every person’s head, whether you want it in there or not.Nice presumptions there. I’ve been on board and advocating intersectionality and doing all of this already. Granted, you aren’t witness to that, so I can forgive your assumptions about my ability to think intersectionally. But yeah, go ahead and tell me I need to do more and that I’m still biased and like some sanctimonious shit.

    Instead of taking the default stupid position, you could have done yourself a great service, by stopping to think, and examine your attitudes, and the thoughts this particular situation have brought up.

    Please do that for me Caine, because apparently you have it all figured out. Siobhan was acting smug and righteous (much like you are right now) about how no one was discussing the intersectionality aspect of it after they brought it up, decrying the “freethought” aspect of this blog due to that lack of engagement.

    You could have taken the opportunity to broaden your thinking, and become much more aware of the intersectionality involved. But no, you go with idiot instead.

    HA! And you could have taken the time to figure out what I was taking issue with. It definitely wasn’t that we should have more awareness of intersectionality. That was most definitely not what I took issue with.

    Shorter Siobhan @17: “And you call yourselves freethinkers!”

  41. throwaway, butcher of tongues, mauler of metaphor says

    Personally, I think you should take Shiv’s advice, and try to think of women as more than women, try thinking of them as people, because most don’t, you know. And don’t go rushing to say “I think women are people!”, because that’s not the same as thinking of women as people all the time, in every possible situation. This is implicit bias, Bayesian priors, which get stuck in every person’s head, whether you want it in there or not.

    Nice presumptions there. I’ve been on board and advocating intersectionality and doing all of this already. Granted, you aren’t witness to that, so I can forgive your assumptions about my ability to think intersectionally. But yeah, go ahead and tell me I need to do more and that I’m still biased and like some sanctimonious shit.

    Instead of taking the default stupid position, you could have done yourself a great service, by stopping to think, and examine your attitudes, and the thoughts this particular situation have brought up.

    Please do that for me Caine, because apparently you have it all figured out. Siobhan was acting smug and righteous (much like you are right now) about how no one was discussing the intersectionality aspect of it after they brought it up, decrying the “freethought” aspect of this blog due to that lack of engagement.

    You could have taken the opportunity to broaden your thinking, and become much more aware of the intersectionality involved. But no, you go with idiot instead.

    HA! And you could have taken the time to figure out what I was taking issue with. It definitely wasn’t that we should have more awareness of intersectionality. That was most definitely not what I took issue with.

    Shorter Siobhan @17: “And you call yourselves freethinkers!”

  42. says

    Weird.

    I have reviewed the list of world chess champions since forever and they are all white males. The present champion is Magnus Carlsen, of Norway. So the argument that the chess champions are trying to exclude genuine competition by allowing the females to boycott seems kind of specious.

    Two facts:

    1. FIDE freely schedules a major competition in a country that oppresses women, and some chess fans seem to think this is just fine.

    2. Chess fans gleefully point out that all chess champions are white males to support the idea that this oppression is irrelevant.

    Are you able to see the connection between these two facts, or am I thinking too many moves ahead for you?

  43. consciousness razor says

    PZ:

    1. FIDE freely schedules a major competition in a country that oppresses women, and some chess fans seem to think this is just fine.

    I certainly don’t, and I’m a much bigger chess fan than you. Gary fucking Kasparov is not okay with this, along with numerous other chess greats I’m sure you’ve never heard of and don’t care about.

    2. Chess fans gleefully point out that all chess champions are white males to support the idea that this oppression is irrelevant.

    It isn’t true, so … what do we do with that non-fact?

    Perhaps you only care that it was “gleefully point[ed] out,” although I don’t actually see where anyone did that — maybe someone could point me to a comment I missed — but let’s assume so for the sake of argument. Many people are “chess fans.” Why should we jump to any conclusions about them based on one or two people on this blog, who don’t appear to be anywhere near a majority of the chess fans here?

    I will agree that, as is so often the case, FIDE reflects badly on the chess world. That is very suggestive, and you might draw out some reasonable conclusions from it. But that’s not what you’re doing here. You didn’t get that in this case male GMs have zero interest in trying to eliminate women from the competition, because they can’t be in the women’s championship. Should probably learn a bit more before you jump into topics like this.

    Chess is pretty big in the Islamic world, so I’m sure you won’t find many sympathetic men there (except maybe in places which are hostile to Iran as a country), but otherwise I do expect most men will see this as a problem. I’m not sure what they can really do about it, other than signing petitions and so forth. Their careers are awfully tenuous, nowhere near as comfortable as a professional athlete for instance (much less a college professor) — so it’s not very obvious how much they ought to be expected to risk personally to confront the systemic problems in the chess world, or how much would be unfair or unreasonable.

    Just for context: there were issues with this year’s Chess Olympiad in Azerbaijan. Fourteen teams from Africa didn’t show or didn’t make it on time, because they had trouble paying for travel expenses, which apparently FIDE was reluctant to offer. Armenia also didn’t attend because of their country’s ongoing border war with Azerbaijan, which of course they all knew has been going on for years, but they stuck with that location. Generally, not much is done by FIDE, and not much is expected of a host country or organization (other than following competition guidelines), in the way of accommodating players from all over the world. This is an especially problematic case, but in an important sense it’s also more of the same.

  44. Ed Seedhouse says

    pz@45:”Two facts:
    1. FIDE freely schedules a major competition in a country that oppresses women, and some chess fans seem to think this is just fine.”

    Some chessplayers are racists and assholes, just like other people. There is actually quite a lot of protesting going on at chess websites and discussion boards. Chess players are not saints and being an asshole doesn’t prevent you from being an Expert, Master, Grandmaster, or world champion. Only your chess playing prowess determines that.

    “2. Chess fans gleefully point out that all chess champions are white males to support the idea that this oppression is irrelevant.”

    Only one person made this claim and I see no evidence that he is a chess fan. In fact he had to look up the world champions argues that he isn’t since every chess player I know knows the names of all the world champions.

    Two chess fans (one being me) have stated that this claim is factually wrong, and it is.

    “Are you able to see the connection between these two facts, or am I thinking too many moves ahead for you?”

    Seeing many moves in advance is not a particularly important point of chess skill. Pattern recognition is much more important. A chess master or grandmaster will usually do a lot less brute force calculation than an expert level player like me.

    They think more along the lines of “My pieces belong on these squares given the pawn formation. How can I get them there? And if I can’t is there some way to change the pawn formation to favour my pieces on their current squares, or can I trade one of my bad pieces for one of his good ones?”

    Of course there will be points in any game where precise calculation is required but it will rarely be necessary for a very strong player to look more than three or four moves ahead and then only in a few variations.

    Much of the calculation necessary is done long before the game and memorized, since typical patterns reoccur all the time especially in the end game. If, for example you show me a position with only the two Kings and one pawn on the board I can tell you pretty much instantly if the side with the pawn has a forced win or not, without any long calculation necessary at all. The masters and grandmasters can do that in many more situations than I can, which is why they beat me.

    None of which is meant to in any way disagree with your moral judgement of this particular matter, because I agree entirely.

  45. Amphiox says

    As a long time, but currently inactive chess player, I can tell you that on the scale of organizational corruption and venality, the only thing that separates FIDE from FIFA and the IOC is the a,punt if money, influence and power the organization in question actually has.

    (Note that Garry Kasparov has been picking bones with FIDE for most of the entirety of his professional life.)

  46. mnb0 says

    @19: “That it’s the Women’s World Championship only makes it more of an outrage that FIDE decided it was fine to hold it in Iran.”
    Welcome to the political shenanigans of

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirsan_Ilyumzhinov

    International chess players have been enjoying them for more than 20 years now.
    Not so nice that you not admitted you were too ill informed to make some decent guesses in your last paragraph.
    Read the comments of Ed Seedhouse. As an active chessplayer since 35 years I can confirm every word he wrotes.

    “I wonder WTF was FIDE’s rationale for the host choice.”
    You’re not exactly the first one. Chess players have wondered FIDE’s rational since Campomanes became president, ie since the early 1980’s.

  47. ragdish says

    Should male chess grandmasters boycott to show solidarity with women? Hmmmmmm…….. So should Jesse Owens have boycotted the 1936 olympics in Nazi Germany to show solidarity with jews? Per his memoirs, Jesse Owens was never ill-treated by the “master race” when he strolled the streets of Berlin and was able to stay in hotels among mixed company. Indeed, he said he was treated better in Germany than say an African American in southern US. But out of principle, should one of our greatest Olympians have boycotted because of antisemitism?

  48. ragdish says

    “Perhaps male chess players tend to be insensitive sexists”

    That’s like saying perhaps Jesse Owens was an insensitive antisemite.

    Not buying this argument.

  49. rietpluim says

    @ragdish – Not buying your argument either. Jesse Owens was one of those inferior races the nazi’s looked upon. If you compare him with today’s chess players, better compare him with the women, not with the men.

  50. ragdish says

    rietplium

    But the Nazis did not ban black athletes. Jews were banned. Tehran likely does not think highly of those infidel male chess grandmasters who are non-Muslim. So they too face some form of bigotry but women are treated worse by forcing them to wear the hijab. So I think my analogy stands.

    BTW, I’m surprised that Tehran is holding a chess championship given that some mullahs have said the game is haram. Maybe this is a sign of progress in that region. Chess is in Iran today and who knows-maybe an atheist president in the future?

  51. Ed Seedhouse says

    mnbo@51″WGM means that in a game Mitra Hejazipour will beat the crap out of 99% of all male players, including me and probably Ed.”

    Virtually certainly Ed. The WGM title requires a FIDE rating of 2300 which is more than a hundred and fifty points better than my highest CFC rating, and CFC ratings are inflated compared to the FIDE ones. I have only beaten a Canadian National Master in tournament play about twice. A WGM is quite a lot stronger than a Canadian NM. A gap of 200 rating points means the higher rated player will be expected to gather 66% of the available points in an extended match. But the actual result would be worse because I was always an overperformer against lower rated players and an underperformer against higher rated ones. And that was back when I was young and fairly healthy. I couldn’t perform anywhere near my peak rating at my current age and state of health.

  52. billforsternz says

    When PZ gets something comprehensively wrong, as he has here, does he ever come back and apologize?

  53. billforsternz says

    @57 Myself. I guess not. PZ serves as my social conscience. I don’t share his world view (I’m more of a Jerry Coyne kind of guy – when I first started reading atheist blogs Jerry and PZ liked each other), but he expresses himself so well I worry that he’s actually right about everything. In a way it’s kind of a relief when there is clear evidence that he’s not – although he’s only human so it’s not surprising I suppose. Even more of a relief to discover he has that oh so human flaw of not admitting his mistakes.

  54. billforsternz says

    Just for the sake of completeness, and for the benefit of some digital archaeologist sifting through relics from the *intertubes* in 2834 AD; I do recognise that it was unfair to draw any conclusions from a dying thread, and that talking to myself like this is not the best idea ever.