Australian Womens Championship

[Trent Parker]

I have changed it. Happy now?

[ursogr8]

^^
tcn

Yes, you have improved the response.
Just keep an eye on the posts of that nice Mr Barry Cox if you are wanting to master subtlety. He is an exemplary poster.

regards
starter

[george]

Hi All,

Well it looks like there will be no Women's Championship and no women's prize which is OK for the bottom line which is in the RED.

Kindest Regards
George Howard

[Brian_Jones]

Not a good decision. Why penalise the Women that have already entered?
In my view the Women's Championship should proceed and the title should be awarded irrespective of how many entries there are. We need to promote Women's chess not spit the dummy when things don't go as planned.
Get on the blower George and Garvin - ring every female chess player in the land! Be positive - maybe try some bribery?

[Garvinator]

Not a good decision. Why penalise the Women that have already entered?
In my view the Women's Championship should proceed and the title should be awarded irrespective of how many entries there are. We need to promote Women's chess not spit the dummy when things don't go as planned.
Get on the blower George and Garvin - ring every female chess player in the land! Be positive - maybe try some bribery?

if you want to call it bribery, we already tried that, it is called the $1000 first prize to the Australian Womens Champion. We cant award the title as we have to follow the by laws laid for the Australian Womens Championship.

[Kevin Bonham]

Not a good decision.

The decision is not a decision but is forced by virtue of ACF policy. Following the complete fiasco with the 2002 Australian Womens Championship (which ended up being held as part of the Australian Masters with only 3 females competing none of whom were serious pretenders to the title of strongest female in the country) Evelyn Koshnitsky submitted a proposal to the ACF, under which the Australian Womens Championships would be run as part of the Open with the title only awarded if there were at least six females from at least three states competing. This proposal was accepted by Council, albeit not unanimously, after an amendment to remove the minimum number restriction failed.

I moved that amendment but I voted for the motion after the amendment was defeated. I now think that if we are going to persist with this title at all we need to find some way to ensure that there is at least one ACF 2000+ rated female competing every time the title is awarded. If the title is not valued by the strongest female players I see very little purpose in having it, and really cannot see what having a minnie-mouse AWC title does to promote women's chess.

[jenni]

really cannot see what having a minnie-mouse AWC title does to promote women's chess.

I agree - having a title awarded to 3 competitiors is silly. However the real problem is that the wonderful male chess establishment does nothing to nurture female chess.

[jenni]

[QUOTE=Brian_Jones] Be positive QUOTE]

This is the bit they have trouble with.....

[jenni]

Not a good decision. Why penalise the Women that have already entered?

As I have said I don't believe you can award a creditable title. However why should the women who have entered be penalised and have no prize money to aim for. Even if not $1,000 prize there should be a small prize for the best performing woman. In the interests of promoting women's chess in Australia.

I have a vested interest here - I have a very pissed off daughter. She was one of the first entries in the tournament. She is staying at the Mercure and paying $120 a night for a room and now, at the last minute, a prize that she was hoping to compete for has been snatched away.

Normally all advertised prize-money has to be paid out. The organisers are using a loophole of not having to award the title, because there are not enough females, to claw back the money. A reduced prize fund of $500 would not be unreasonable.

[auriga]

I agree - having a title awarded to 3 competitiors is silly. However the real problem is that the wonderful male chess establishment does nothing to nurture female chess.

as a side note,
in the us they offer half entry fee for women
(and also to any player who can show an plane ticket to attend the tourny ie. interstate players).
i would suggest one step further and give free entry to all women to boost numbers.

[Oepty]

There must be a prize given for the best women in the Australian Open. It would be a disgrace if this did not happen. The title cannot be awarded as has been stated but some prize money must be awarded.

I worked out last night that to get 6 women players to play we are asking 1 in about every 26 rated and active women players to enter the competition. I did a quick count and got to 155 active rated women. I probably missed a couple, but I doubt more than ten. We have no where that rate of men playing in the tournament as per the list Garvin put up on the 16th. It is about 1 in every 42 men, and with 4 women entered it is about 1 in every 38 women. It is therefore no real surprise that 6 females did enter.

[Oepty]

There must be a prize given for the best women in the Australian Open. It would be a disgrace if this did not happen. The title cannot be awarded as has been stated but some prize money must be awarded.

I worked out last night that to get 6 women players to play we are asking 1 in about every 26 rated and active women players to enter the competition. I did a quick count and got to 155 active rated women. I probably missed a couple, but I doubt more than ten. We have no where that rate of men playing in the tournament as per the list Garvin put up on the 16th. It is about 1 in every 42 men, and with 4 women entered it is about 1 in every 38 women. It is therefore no real surprise that less than 6 females entered.

[Libby]

as a side note,
in the us they offer half entry fee for women
(and also to any player who can show an plane ticket to attend the tourny ie. interstate players).
i would suggest one step further and give free entry to all women to boost numbers.

I don't know that I really agree with the idea of women getting a free ride to enter the event (if you want prizes you need to be expected to contribute in some way to the pool). However, it's not the fault of those women who do enter that others choose not to. You can only be the best of who is there to play. Have a look at the list of girls registered in the junior events to see where the problem starts from. Will we ever get equity in numbers with boys - I think not (and less in the pool to start with makes the prospect of equity in strength and depth a complete pipe-dream, whatever one might argue on the male/female chess merit bandwagon). So we may never get equity in numbers but if you can't do better than the number registered for the 2005 Aus Junior Girls events (disproportionally from the ACT as Jenni points out) then how does anyone ever expect to have a credible Women's field? I'm sure the active female players already counted by Freddy are themselves significantly juniors, not adults.

Removing any prospect of a Womens prize from the Open does nothing but discourage those who do bother to play. By all means review the $$$s but do we want the female population sitting around next year and watching the numbers before they enter? Is a better solution a smaller, guaranteed prize with the main prize and title dependent on entries?

I thought you guys wanted to see more gals at the events? Not just the type you pin up on the back of the door? And certainly not us mothers?

[ursogr8]

There must be a prize given for the best women in the Australian Open. It would be a disgrace if this did not happen. The title cannot be awarded as has been stated but some prize money must be awarded.

I worked out last night that to get 6 women players to play we are asking 1 in about every 26 rated and active women players to enter the competition. I did a quick count and got to 155 active rated women. I probably missed a couple, but I doubt more than ten. We have no where that rate of men playing in the tournament as per the list Garvin put up on the 16th. It is about 1 in every 42 men, and with 4 women entered it is about 1 in every 38 women. It is therefore no real surprise that less than 6 females entered.

Mr Freddy

Like your post mate. All those metrics...great stuff.


starter

[Garvinator]

George and I have spoken and it looks like we will be offering a womens prize after all. How much it is is not certain, but there will most likely be a womens prize