29-11-2012, 12:53 PM
Rather than compare SNCL with events abroad I'd prefer to compare it to our other home events especially weekend congresses and regional leagues. That would give us an idea of the relative numbers of female players in CS; comparing it with other countries or international events is perhaps misleading. Other than to say that if other countries are achieving a higher percentage of female participants, then what are they doing differently to us?
You might argue that this compares open events to closed "selection" events, but it would be interesting to know the percentage of active females vs males playing these events (i.e. how much of a difference exists between closed and open tournaments?).
My personal opinion is that selection for any chess event should be based on performance and not gender. Females are equally capable of competing over the chessboard as males are IMHO. But there are far fewer females playing. In a past life (i.e. one where I did productive work!) my company and several others implemented a policy on gender diversity in senior management and executive positions. The aim being to achieve a minimum percentage of females in these roles. There was major debate at the time and much resentment about this favouring selection of female candidates to "make up the numbers" rather than selecting the best individual for the role (regardless of gender). Meritocracy works if selection is fair and ethical (of course, candidates' opinions on what constituted "fair and ethical" can, did, and does vary widely!).
I think participation of junior players (rather than specifically female players) in events like the SNCL is the way forward and we are clearly seeing some of the leading juniors relishing the task of taking it to the adults in the SNCL (and other events) as their skills improve. For that reason I like Hugh's idea but I would refine it to a "junior" and not a female player. My perception is that there are a lot of junior players (male and female) who drop out of the game at a certain point and that is the issue we should be addessing rather than worrying about favouring one gender over another.
You might argue that this compares open events to closed "selection" events, but it would be interesting to know the percentage of active females vs males playing these events (i.e. how much of a difference exists between closed and open tournaments?).
My personal opinion is that selection for any chess event should be based on performance and not gender. Females are equally capable of competing over the chessboard as males are IMHO. But there are far fewer females playing. In a past life (i.e. one where I did productive work!) my company and several others implemented a policy on gender diversity in senior management and executive positions. The aim being to achieve a minimum percentage of females in these roles. There was major debate at the time and much resentment about this favouring selection of female candidates to "make up the numbers" rather than selecting the best individual for the role (regardless of gender). Meritocracy works if selection is fair and ethical (of course, candidates' opinions on what constituted "fair and ethical" can, did, and does vary widely!).
I think participation of junior players (rather than specifically female players) in events like the SNCL is the way forward and we are clearly seeing some of the leading juniors relishing the task of taking it to the adults in the SNCL (and other events) as their skills improve. For that reason I like Hugh's idea but I would refine it to a "junior" and not a female player. My perception is that there are a lot of junior players (male and female) who drop out of the game at a certain point and that is the issue we should be addessing rather than worrying about favouring one gender over another.