White to play and win
Grigoriev 1933
Above, a study that I enjoyed failing to solve this weekend
Below, the version that Grigoriev should have created if he wanted to be be in the running for an English Chess Federation King and pawn study of the year award.
A few days ago I received an email explaining the new format of the ECF’s Player of the Year poll. Unlike previous years when members could vote whoever they pleased, this time around we are allowed to pick from a shortlist chosen by the ECF on our behalf. It seems that,
" ... a system similar to the Oscars ...."
was the intention. Mission accomplished, I think.
Digital Spy: Oscars 2015: What happened to diversity in this year’s nominations?
Washington Post: Oscars 2015 Oscar nominations show lack of diversity in a year when films didn't
USA Today: White, male field spurs Oscars diversity blacklash
Daily Telegraph: And the Oscar winner is ... a white, middle-aged man
Hat-tip to Jack Rudd
29 comments:
The thread on the ECF Forum is quite something, too.
Indeed.
I have tried to block various people on the ECF Forum. Unfortunately - unlikely the EC Forum - it doesn’t stick and I have to sign in afresh each visit.
Which mens I sometimes have the misfortune to read posts by utter bellends.
hey ho.
Not wishing to detract from your main point, Jonathan, but I have a couple of other observations of the ECF POTY award:
1. The email which invites members to vote lists only the positive achievements of the nominated players and I wonder if it would be better to list all results?
2. The voting mechanism is open to abuse (more so than in previous years). It would be easy to impersonate another ECF member by providing their membership number.
Regarding point 2, there was one year where the voting just used a standard website poll, so the entire internet could vote. I think they scrapped that one.
Polling for ECF Player of the Year could be done in the same way as the ECF elects directors, namely by the voting members aka ECF Council. That would have the possible disadvantage that with all their proxy votes, A, B, D and D between them would control about half the voting rights.
Perhaps it should be a two stage process, the first open, the second closed. So invite nominations, but insist on a certain minimum support. Also retain the right to veto "joke" candidates with narrow support. The second closed phase invites votes from the wider membership. Short of spending lots of money on a robust system, potential electoral fraud is something that would have to be accepted.
RdC
I wouldn't have thought David Howell was exactly 'white', is he? Mixed race, I should have thought. Or am I missing your point?
Hello John.
I think you might be.
I don’t know how David Howell identifies, or whether he thinks himself to be anything at all in particular. I am nevertheless aware that he might well consider himself to be mixed race or non-white in some other sense.
Either way, I don’t think that concerns about the lack of diversity in the field that the ECF have chosen (key point) are invalid. Neither do I think that the comparison with the Oscars is absurd.
Well, it seems a bit much to me to expect the ECF to work out how people 'identify'. Hell, for all either of knows Jonathan Hawkins regards himself as a Rastafarian. And in any case as you say David H strikes one as someone who has better things to think about.
I don't really see the problem - we don't have any ethnic minorities or women who've done anything of any note this year, David excluded, so there aren't any on the shortlist. The ECF has decided to operate a shortlist system as a (very sensible, in my view) way of dealing with the problems that have arisen in the past because of certain pillocks we could all name thinking it was amusing to nominate and vote for their friends. Sure, I dare say in a perfect world there'd maybe be a list of all the nominations and we'd know who chose the shortlist, but I'm struggling to care about that. It's obviously a perfectly sensible list; who cares who chose it? And the diversity point strikes me as nonsense. Our women are useless, let's face it. When we have one or two (active, that is) who can fulfil the very low requirements for an international title, say, then maybe they might get somewhere near the shortlist, but until then I don't see the point of a token woman on the list.
John,
Do you find it embarrassing to find yourself on the same side of the argument as Stewart Reuben?
(Serious question)
A stopped clock is right twice a day.
Or, more seriously, no, of course not, what a strange question.
You need to be clear what you're saying. Is it, on the one hand, there should always be a brown person and a woman on the list even though they haven't done anything worthy of inclusion, or on the other, there are in fact brown people and women who have done something wortrhy of inclusion this year but aren't on the list. Some of the more righteous contributors to the thread which is so upsetting Jack don't seem to have grasped the difference.
It's like Sports Pesonality of the Year. It doesn't matter how many goals you score in the Championship, you don't get on the list.
Jonathan
Perhaps it would help if you explain how one promotes diversity/recognition of under-represented groups whilst at the same time being careful to avoid tokenism? Or is tokenism not a problem for you?
It's like Sports Personality of the Year
That's a reasonable view, but why should it be the only reasonable view? Why should we assume they're comparable awards working in the same way? ECF members can presumably form their own views as to how they wish the award to work.
It doesn't matter how many goals you score in the Championship, you don't get on the list.
Following that (again, perfectly reasonable) logic, given that few of the performers on the list are actually of stellar quality, shouldn't the shortlist actually consist of far fewer names than it does, or possibly none at all?
Perhaps it would help if you explain how one promotes diversity/recognition of under-represented groups whilst at the same time being careful to avoid tokenism?
Well let me take a pop. The first thing is to be aware that the near-invisibility of people other than white men, in contemporary British chess, is a problem. (If people don't think it is, that's cool, but I don't propose to engage with that views.) The second thing is to acknowledge that this needs to be rectified and that it's the task of the representative body in the sport to do something about it. And part of that doing-something-about-it is that if you find on any occasion that you've excluded women, or you've excluded non-white people, you're actually aware that this has occurred and you see if it could not in fact have been avoided. You don't say "oh we didn't notice", when you're supposed to be noticing, and you don't bang on about "tokenism", because the real tokenism in situations such as this is to have a paper policy, to verbally say that such things matter but miraculously, every time something actually comes up it's nothing-to-see-here and how-could-we-possibly-be-prejudiced.
Now personally, I don't give a fig either way about the Player of the Year Award, in which I have never voted. And I'd be happy enough if the relevant ECF officials were to issue a statement going something like this:
Yes, we didn't include any women on the shortlist. We were aware of this and we regret it wasn't possible, but we regard this as an award based purely on merit, where "merit" is measured in Elo terms, and no women qualified on those grounds. However, we are actively working to increase the participation of women in English chess and we offer you examples of ECF programs X, Y and Z, which are designed to have that effect.
But they weren't aware, were they? And how are they doing on the subject of X, Y and Z?
(As it happens, I think there were women who could more than plausibly have been on the shortlist on the grounds of meritorious performances, their names being on the various forum threads discussing the topic. But it's not important - if other people just want to see performances in absolute Elo terms, that's more or less OK by me. If I see serious efforts being taken to improve inclusivity and to make sure officials are aware of this. But I don't.)
I agree with Justin's response (at 12.48) to my question but am not sure that his views are shared by all those who have criticised the shortlist, which to my mind can only really be criticised for being too long (it is hardly a short list at all).
John: You need to be clear what you're saying. Is it, on the one hand, there should always be a brown person and a woman on the list even though they haven't done anything worthy of inclusion ....
Absolutely not.
Jonathan: is tokenism not a problem for you?
It certainly would be if it happened. However I don’t accept that the only reason it’s possible to find for voting for various non-white non-male chessers is to make the list look representative for appearances sake. So,
John: there are in fact brown people and women who have done something wortrhy of inclusion this year but aren't on the list.
Yes, I would broadly agree with this. Although I probably wouldn’t have used the word brown. And actually I don’t accept the narrative that assumes a shortlist is necessary either.
John again: It's like Sports Pesonality of the Year
We’re all old enough to remember when you could vote for whoever you wanted are we not?
Jonathan:
Perhaps it would help if you explain how one promotes diversity/recognition of under-represented groups whilst at the same time being careful to avoid tokenism?
This is about attitude, I think. For a start, if you come up with an extremely mono-cultural shortlist - which you might well do depending on the system you chose to employ - you notice. If you don’t notice you don’t shout about how virtuous you are for not noticing.
Of course, if you *choose* that only certain kinds of achievement are going to count - and they say (for no readily explained reason) that achievements means a particularly good score in one particular event - and combine that lot with everybody rated over 2600 then you will get a monocultural list. If you were really interested in promoting diversity I don’t think you’d end up at this point at all.
Equally, if you were really interested in promoting diversity you wouldn’t find it difficult to come up with a variety of different people who have achieved something that you might want to recognise. The issue of tokenism just disappears. Unless, that is, that you can only see tokenism as a reason for wanting to acknowledge somebody’s achievement in which case it’s always going to be there.
So what about this 'need' for a short list? Is there really one? You *can* do it, sure, but that’s a choice. The results of that choice - when you check them against previous years voting - are clearly less diverse. If you do look at previous years you will also see that when given the choice those who voted *don’t* choose to restrict their votes to the kind of people and the kind of achievement that the ECF are currently saying are the only ones worth bothering with.
Most of all, if you’re genuinely interested in promoting diversity you don’t put Stewart Reuben in charge.
To my shy friend ...
(with apologies to everybody else)
do you have figures that we could whip up into a post? Anonymously if you prefer? I"m contactable by email if you want to discuss further.
>Most of all, if you’re genuinely interested in promoting diversity you don’t put Stewart Reuben in charge.
OK, look, this is beginning to annoy me. Stewart's a volunteer who's done a hell of a lot for English chess. He deserves some respect. I don't know what you have against him, but you're out of order here.
>For a start, if you come up with an extremely mono-cultural shortlist - which you might well do depending on the system you chose to employ - you notice
Well, frankly, that's a bit rich coming from someone who appeared *not* to notice - like a few other critics - that the likely winner was in fact from an ethnic minority.
> Although I probably wouldn’t have used the word brown.
Well, nor would I, were it not for the fact that we don't seem to be counting yellow-ish people as sufficiently ethnically diverse.
>Equally, if you were really interested in promoting diversity
This strikes me as living in cloud-cuckoo-land. The award isn't intended to promote diversity, whatever that silly phrase means. It's intended to celebrate those who've achieved great things at the game during the year in question.
>and the kind of achievement that the ECF are currently saying are the only ones worth bothering with.
Oh come on, this is such nonsense. There are other awards for, e.g. service to the game. This one's for striking achievements over the board.
>So what about this 'need' for a short list?
Who says there's a need? The ECF have decided it's a good idea for a couple of reasons; number one, it keeps Purtonism down, number two, it enables the ECF to tell everyone the achievements of the people on the list and thus, one might think, help get the voting up.
> For a start, if you come up with an extremely mono-cultural shortlist - which you might well do depending on the system you chose to employ - you notice. If you don’t notice you don’t shout about how virtuous you are for not noticing.
Yes and no. Ultimately, the aim of all the kind of political correctness, tokenism, etc. which you are advocating is precisely to reach a society where people don't really notice what other people's ethnicity is because it doesn't matter. One needs to remember that this sort of excessively PC stuff is not absolute truth, but a temporary measure which some people think is necesary to address what is hopefully a temporary problem.
Actually, I can't remember a time when SPOTY had an entirely open vote, though if you say so then no doubt it did.
>(As it happens, I think there were women who could more than plausibly have been on the shortlist on the grounds of meritorious performances, their names being on the various forum threads discussing the topic.
Well, in that case, I fear that rational discussion is not possible. IIRC, Lawrence's proposed nominees were Sabrina, on the grounds that she's gained 100 rating points in the year, Amy, on the grounds she won the British women's championship, and Akshaya, on the grounds that she gained 55 ratings points at the age of 14.
To be honest, it would be unkind to comment too much further, so let me just observe that winning the British Women's Championship involved finishing 46th out of 57 finishers in the British, equal with for instance yourself and five places above the only other eligible entrant, with a tournament performance rating of 2053. I know women face dreadful obstacles in achieving a reasonable standard at the game (I never know what they are exactly, but still), but even so, it seems unlikely that this was the most striking achievement by a British chesser in the calendar year under consideration.
>The first thing is to be aware that the near-invisibility of people other than white men, in contemporary British chess, is a problem.
It's hardly surprising that they're invisible if people don't even notice when they win the British championship.
But anyway, what you say is the reverse of the truth. There aren't very many women, true, and they're not very good, but they enjoy opportunities and visibility out of all proportion to their actual achievements at the game.
Your proposed statement is staggering. You appear to think that the ECF has a mandate from its members to persuade more women to play the game because, despite the evidence that suggests that rather few women are interested in it, this is somehow a desirable goal. That's surprising enough, but you then appear to imagine that this goal is furthered by a statement which says, in effect, 'You will notice that there are no women on this shortlist; that's because British women have achieved nothing noticeable in chess this year. However, we're going to carry on spending money and launching public appeals in order to send Britain's 47th, 138th, 257th and 498th best players to international tournaments and paying for them to have a coach simply because they have lots of Y chromosomes." I'm not sure that's going to work.
Let's face it, all the evidence seems to suggest that the reason not many women play the game is that their peer groups don't think it's cool once they hit puberty. It's expecting rather a lot for the ECF to do anything about that.
>Following that (again, perfectly reasonable) logic, given that few of the performers on the list are actually of stellar quality, shouldn't the shortlist actually consist of far fewer names than it does, or possibly none at all?
I don't follow this. They're all in Britain's top 100, I'd have thought.
John,
Well, frankly, that's a bit rich coming from someone who appeared *not* to notice - like a few other critics - that the likely winner was in fact from an ethnic minority.
I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on what counts as an achievement. Nevertheless, I was very much aware that David Howell may not consider himself to be white at the time I wrote the post.
The fact of someone's being a hard-working, dedicated volunteer - which I am happy to agree is true of Stewart Reuben - does not necessarily mean they are right for a particular role in the organization. Nor does it mean they should be immune to criticism when they make questionable or unexplained decisions.
I think it’s also worth remembering that just even though the ECF is staffed by people who are unpaid they are still paid for. In fact I’d already written a post along those lines which will appear Monday before the issue came up in this context.
>The fact of someone's being a hard-working, dedicated volunteer does not necessarily mean they are right for a particular role in the organization.
Of course it doesn't. It means they should be treated with respect, though, which the comment I was criticising lamentably failed to do.
As to questionable decisions, I can't help feeling that Stewart's judgment is a good deal superior to anyone who thinks that finishing 46th out of 57 in the British Championship and scoring 4.5/7 in the second division of the national league would be a suitable qualification for being nominated as the ECF player of the year.
You may wish to skip tomorrow’s post John.
Never the twain shall meet.
1) I hadn't heard of "Purtonism"? Google gave just two results, the first was something in Chinese, the second was this very blog post.
2) The British women chessplayers have "lots of Y chromosomes"? Okay then, please stop going on about David Howell's color not being noticed.
For the benefit of OCP (and others)
Purtonism
Named after a guy involved with a 4NCL team which arranged for all of their number to vote for a teammate in least year’s player of the year vote.
A lot of people as see this as a very silly thing to do/taking the piss etc. For myself, I must admit I don’t see it as the primary reason to have a player of the year vote. On the other hand, if you have a democracy then sometimes people vote for things/for reasons that you might not care for. If you don’t want votes like these to matter so much then get more people to vote overall, I would say.
That said, I do understand why it might be felt that this sort of thing should be stopped. At the very least, though, there’s a lot of baby gone out with the bath water with the switch to the current system.
They're all in Britain's top 100, I'd have thought
When did the Sports Personality of the Year last go to somebody ranked 99th in the country in their sport?
Post a Comment