Our state nominees for the Denker & Polgar are chosen in our K-12 Open section of our State Scholastic Championship. I’m wondering what our policy should be when a girl wins that section. Since the playing schedule is the same, obviously she can’t play in both events.
Is the Denker considered more prestigious since it is open to all and so she would be required to play in that? However, her chances of winning a prize may well be much better in the Polgar, so she may prefer that event. I’m not enamored in allowing her to choose at the end of the tournament. As then her choice, might well involve how she could get a friend the other invitation or remove that opportunity from someone she doesn’t like.
Right now, we’re considering making the default be the Denker, unless a player informs us earlier that she would prefer the Polgar. Possibly by the end of the 3rd or 4th round (out of 6, the evening round on Saturday is the 4th).
I’d be interested in what policies other states have.
Shouldn’t the choice be left entirely to the young woman who wins the Denker qualifier? By such logic, the young man who qualifies might have a friend who finished second…he might take his parents up on their offer of summer in France so his friend can play. Will he have to make a similar commitment?
Better yet, shouldn’t one of the two NATIONAL events be moved to a different week so the young woman doesn’t have to make such a choice? She should have the opportunity to play in both events… Here, PA,IL, and the other states are at USCF’s mercy.
The Illinois Chess Assn is holding its Denker & Polgar qualifiers in separate locations, both on the last weekend of April. Although it makes no practical difference this year, it has in past years and it will in future years. The precedent is unfortunate.
Illinois requires that all participants agree to represent the state if they win as a condition of playing in its Denker qualfier. The Polgar has a similar requirement. Of course, it’s not an enforceable promise…
It seemed to me that the issue was similar to that of the same person qualifyng for 3rd place at $50 and 1st U1400 at $50. (Personally I make all prizes $5 or $10 different to eliminate these issues.) The person does not get to choose which prize they prefer, but is awarded the more prestigious one (even though there is no monetary difference).
Given the tone of the rhetoric over the Polgar proposal, I’m really surprised that there’s not more outrage over this. I’d be very disappointed if my daughter could qualify for both tournaments but was forced to choose. If we’re not trying to make girls into second-class chess players, why do we do stupid things like this scheduling mess?
Why is this different than your daughter choosing which state music competition categories she competes in, or which debate tournaments she enters, or which volleyball tournaments?
The US Open is a good venue for both tournaments, but it is practically impossible to run them so that they don’t overlap. Should we force one of them to move to a different event? Which one would you move and where would you move it to?
It’s not good that they are forced to choose. Other bad choices that she’ll be faced with doesn’t make this one any better (of course, she’ll have to get quite a bit better before this really becomes a problem – this would be a great problem to have ).
I could be wrong but I don’t think any of those other competitions are split quite the way these two tournaments are. The Polgar tournament sounds like a great idea, but not if we’re forcing those that play in it to give up the other tournament. Kinda sends the wrong message.
Over a 9 day US Open (including 2 weekends) we can’t fit in both tournaments? Maybe the schedules would have to be a little different, but some way of doing this ought to be possible. Give one tournament the first weekend (and Monday-Tuesday) and the other tournament the second weekend (and Thursday-Friday) or something like that. I’m sure some kind of schedule could be worked out.
She should just choose whichever she wants to play in. The Denker is usually (at least every time so far) comprised of stronger players than the Polgar. If she wishes to play in a stronger tournament she can choose Denker. If she wishes to play in the less strong (I’m trying to avoid the term “weaker” in case it sends out the wronge message ) tournament then she can choose the Polgar. Or she may just want to play against other girls, so she can choose the Polgar that way. It really shouldn’t matter.
If she’s willing to give up her spot just so that her friend can play, then so be it. She’s the one missing out on the great opportunity. Honestly, if I qualified for the Denker I wouldn’t give up my spot even for my best friend or a family member; I’m sure most people would feel the same way.
Making the Denker as the “default” tournament for the winner would be a bad idea. Suppose a girl going into the last round is leading by half a point (and the second place girl is well behind her), but she wants to go to the Polgar tournament but not the Denker. Then what if she purposely loses the last round? That would be even worse because her opponent might end up winning the tournament without even earning it. So it’s better to have her choose even at the risk that she may “give up” her spot for a friend (sounds like a pretty absurd thing to do IMO ).
You could if you were willing to have multiple rounds per day. The Denker and Polgar are set up as one game/day, presumably to give the HS kids some experience with “real” chess instead of the fast-time-control piffle they usually play. Note that another scheduling constraint is that the game(s) must be over in time for the 7 p.m. U.S. Open round each day. (And the last round is often (though not always) played on Sunday afternoon.)
Here in Nevada we have it written that the winner of our K-12 Nevada State Scholastic Tournament is our Denker qualifier and the top girl in the K-12 & K-8 sections will play-off to find our Polgar qualifier.
Fortunately (or unfortunately depending on your thinking) I don’t think we are going to have a girl win the K-12 section so this point is probably mute in Nevada. I guess we’ll cross the same bridge should we come to it.
However, having said this, I know that Nevada had two girls playing in the Polgar Tournament last year and personally I would take the more prestigious Denker Tournament since only High-School “Champions” can get into that tournament whereas it seems they let anybody who was willing to participate play in the Polgar Tournament last year.
In North Carolina, we select the Denker from the State K-12 Championships. Then, we select the Polgar at an All Girls Tournament on another weekend.
I went to the Polgar last year with my daughter. I actually liked having both tournaments run at the same time. We really didn’t know our Denker rep beforehand, and they enjoyed pulling for and following each other’s games.
Because it is only State Champs, the Denker is harder to get in and does have better rated players. Plus, since the Polgar Committee can make extra choices, you can have more than one rep per state.
Still, the Polgar has a few extra side events that actually makes it more fun. That’s my opinion.
As for the question in this thread, I’d let the girl decide. She may have her own reasons for selecting one over another. She earned the right.
"As for the question in this thread, I’d let the girl decide. She may have her own reasons for selecting one over another. She earned the right.
[/quote]
"
Certainly, its desirable to give the girl the choice to decide in which tournament to play. However, its the parent and coach’s responsibility to assist her in the process of assessing this situation.
In this particular case, there is not a right or wrong answer. The decision has to be made taking into consideration the following factors:
Age of the girl.
Reasonable expectations for her to qualify again for the Denker Tournament vs. the Polgar Tournament: It could be that there may not be a second chance to qualify for the Denker, but the possibility of playing in the Polgar Tournament will be more viable.
Rating of the player.
Personal goals.
Ideally, the girl should be more willing to choose to play in the Denker tournament, even if she “can do better” in the Polgar tournament.
Personally, I would it prefer not to have segregated events. However, reality dictates to include this event as a choice and guide our kids to make the correct decision for them.
If the USCF is allowing a girls only tournament at the US Opens, maybe the Denker should become a tournament just for boys. This would eliminate any conflicts when a girl currently qualifies for both.
I do not agree with your statement. However, I sense that we both agree that segregating girls in chess its not a good idea. In fact, I feel that we are moving backwards… In the United States it has been taking us (women) hundreds of years to gain rights and respect. Segregating girls in chess is sending the wrong message.
For me playing chess was an struggle. My father did not think that chess was something for girls, and tried to do everything possible to keep me away from it. We were only two women/girls in the chess club in Santiago, Chile (the place were I was born). I came from a culture that is extremely chauvinist. The fact that I am still playing chess for me its a victory, because everything around me tried to prevent it.
This is why I strongly feel that need to handle these issues very carefully and educate our children (girls and boys) with the notion that chess is an intellectual activity that provides equal opportunities for all.
Beatriz Marinello
Executive Board Member
First Woman President of the USCF
I can’t agree with this notion to a few “all girls” tournaments is a step back.
My daughter has played in 155 tournaments - 3 have been “all girls.” That’s just a little variety to me.
Just like the PGA has a match play tournament (most are stroke play) and NASCAR has few road roads (most are on an oval), a few All Girls events just mixes it up. What wrong message are we sending?
But that’s not how the tournament was defined. It was explicitly created as a tournament for state High School champions, who can be either male or female. The Polgar was created as a tournament for girls, who can only be, well, female. Admittedly, Denker is no longer around to argue about it, but I think it’s pretty clear what he wanted his money used for.
If that is the intent, then if the High School Champion is a girl, she should be required to play in the Denker and not allowed to play in the Polgar and this subject is moot.
Since Lincoln freed the slaves, you can’t “require” anyone to play in the Denker. I suppose you could refrain from inviting to the Polgar to a player who declined an invitation to the Denker.
With the state of Michigan, the Polgar Girls Invitational tournament is settled at the Michigan Womens’ Championship. With the Polgar Girls Invitational settled at the Michigan Women’s Championship – the 2005 Michigan Womens’ Championship had the best turn-out – 37 entries. Was at the 2005 Michigan K-12 championship (as spectator), there was only two girls in the tournament.
If you are thinking it is a bad idea for her to be in the Michigan Womens’ Championship because she is a scholastic player. Well, she is now a two time Michigan Womens’ Champion. True, she is the 2005 co-champion but a co-champion is never called half a champion. She is going back to the Polgar Girls Invitational for the third time. Knowing the small number of women players in Michigan, very sure she will be going back to the Polgar Girls Invitational tournaments till she gets out of high school.
).
) tournament then she can choose the Polgar. Or she may just want to play against other girls, so she can choose the Polgar that way. It really shouldn’t matter.
).