European Individual championships

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Its not a reflection of women nor their motives for entering a chess event, but of the
male ego, I thought this was obvious.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Who 'usually', know how to dress appropriately being the operative word, the FIDE
ruling is obviously designed to take into consideration any anomalies and makes
perfect sense, the last thing a dude wants or needs when he's trying to create is to be
distracted. To state that it would not be a distraction if excessive cleavage was shown
is to ...[text shortened]... the attraction and its not excessively draconian to ask
women to dress with modesty, is it.

Yes, it is.

The chessboard is on the table, not on your opponents chest.

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
Problem: not everybody wears the same thing to any of those three. Or four. I see women wearing dresses at classical concerts that they wouldn't wear in church. What I myself wear to a family event depends on whether it's a marriage or our yearly all-cousins'-get-together. But a tie? I wear that to funerals.

Besides, chess is a competitive event. Dem ...[text shortened]... the streets (no bikinis), not the kind you can expect at an official function.

Richard

The only time I have played chess in a tie was vs Spassky in a simul. I don't think a tie is necessary unless you are being paid to appear.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

ha, I can think of a couple characters who scare away men, women and children with their dress and smell.

Unfortunately there is no hard and fast rule about body odor otb.

Originally posted by DCpoc1985
Yes, it is.

The chessboard is on the table, not on your opponents chest.

Then I suggest you play blindfold chess. Demanding modesty is draconian, how?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Then I suggest you play blindfold chess. Demanding modesty is draconian, how?

Why would I need to play blindfold chess? I'm not the one trying to tell my opponents what to wear.

If you're unable to control yourself then that is your problem.

Besides, modesty is an extremely subjective concept. What you and I consider modest could be completely different. Never mind what some religious fundamentalist or a naturist might think.

Edited for change of word.

Originally posted by DCpoc1985
Why would I need to play blindfold chess? I'm not the one trying to tell my opponents what to wear.

If you're unable to control yourself then that is your problem.

Besides, modesty is an extremely subjective concept. What you and I consider modest could be completely different. Never mind what some religious fundamentalist or a naturist might think.

Edited for change of word.

He is a religious fundamentalist.

Originally posted by DCpoc1985
Why would I need to play blindfold chess? I'm not the one trying to tell my opponents what to wear.

If you're unable to control yourself then that is your problem.

Besides, modesty is an extremely subjective concept. What you and I consider modest could be completely different. Never mind what some religious fundamentalist or a naturist might think.

Edited for change of word.

neither is FIDE, requiring that a women cover her boobs is not telling here what to
wear, is it, its merely advocating modesty. Please note your attempts to make the
argument personal with the now obligatory ad hominen are utterly futile and perhaps a
reflection of the shallowness of your case, you will now state why requiring modesty is
either draconian or untoward, stating that its a subjective matter is not a reason at all,
its a poor excuse and as yet you have provided nothing but mere opinion,
unsubstantiated at that, with vain and irrelevant assertions to religion? As far as i am
aware, FIDE is not a religious organisation, you may want to consider that when
making your assertions, it may help to avoid irrelevancies and absurdity, but i doubt it.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
He is a religious fundamentalist.

I did not make the FIDE ruling and FIDE is not a religious organisation making your
assertion irrelevant and ludicrous. Is this what we have come to expect from the
materialists, absurd and unsubstantiated assertions, oh dear, your in for a roasting
now, its akin to RJH blaming the accusations on cheating to the fact that he doesn't
advocate the evolutionary hypothesis.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I did not make the FIDE ruling and FIDE is not a religious organisation making your
assertion irrelevant and ludicrous. Is this what we have come to expect from the
materialists, absurd and unsubstantiated assertions, oh dear, your in for a roasting now.

Are you on drugs?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Are you on drugs?

another absurd irrelevancy.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
another absurd irrelevancy.

I find your inability to follow a thread quite extraordinary, hence why i asked if you were on drugs. Only someone who is mentally impaired can so frequently miss the points of postings as often as you do. So here we are again, i find myself explaining to you the themes of four posts as you appear to be so dim you've missed it.

The previous poster above made a comment about how modesty is subjective, pointing out that religious fundamentalists and naturists would have extremely differing opinions on what 'modesty' is. I merely pointed out to the poster that you yourself are a religious fundamentalist. There we have it. End of topic. Cheerio.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
neither is FIDE, requiring that a women cover her boobs is not telling here what to
wear, is it, its merely advocating modesty. Please note your attempts to make the
argument personal with the now obligatory ad hominen are utterly futile and perhaps a
reflection of the shallowness of your case, you will now state why requiring modesty is
eit ...[text shortened]... when
making your assertions, it may help to avoid irrelevancies and absurdity, but i doubt it.

Ok...there is a difference between "covering her boobs" and how much cleavage is deemed acceptable. Even I might concede someone playing chess topless could be reasonably stated to be a distraction.

I don't believe showing cleavage is immodest, from what I gather you do. What makes your opinion more valid than mine?

I used religion (those that require more modesty than is the norm) and naturism as two examples to show how modesty is a subjective concept. I was not claiming FIDE is a religious organisation, please read my posts before replying to them, it might help you understand them better.

Also, could you please inform me where I insulted you and then show where I used that insult in an attempt to invalidate your argument.

Originally posted by DCpoc1985
Ok...there is a difference between "covering her boobs" and how much cleavage is deemed acceptable. Even I might concede someone playing chess topless could be reasonably stated to be a distraction.

I don't believe showing cleavage is immodest, from what I gather you do. What makes your opinion more valid than mine?

I used religion (those that requ ...[text shortened]... nsulted you and then show where I used that insult in an attempt to invalidate your argument.

please note i am not FIDE, i did not make the rule, its not about me, why you are
trying to make it personal is a nonsense, you may want to consider this when
targeting your cyber rockets. Ad Hominen is not a reference to an insult, its a case
where the argument is directed towards the person rather than the actual content of
what they are saying, did i say that you insulted me, nope, you are therefore
making what is termed a straw man argument, citing for the basis of your assertion
a clause that your opponent has not advocated. If you could make reference to
what actually is stated, you may do better, still you have not stated why advocating
modesty is wrong other than, its a subjective matter, which it may be, but it hardly
invalidates why FIDE (that's not me btw) has the right to expect modesty from its
participants. When you do we may have something to talk about, all else is endless
bickering and an utterly futile exercise

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
please note i am not FIDE, i did not make the rule, its not about me, why you are
trying to make it personal is a nonsense, you may want to consider this when
targeting your cyber rockets. Ad Hominen is not a reference to an insult, its a case
where the argument is directed towards the person rather than the actual content of
what they are sa ...[text shortened]... ay have something to talk about, all else is endless
bickering and an utterly futile exercise

From Wikipedia

"An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"😉, short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.[1] Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as a logical fallacy."

It's funny, in this argument we've both been referencing FIDE when the dress code was implemented on the basis of rules provided by the European Chess Union.

I am English and England is a member of the ECU, so I indirectly contribute to it. I'm not comfortable with my money going to an organisation that is trying to impose values I don't share on other people who don't share them.

If people can't even agree on what modesty is then who is one individual to try and impose their view of modesty on another?

I don't believe that how much cleavage is shown is in any way relevant to chess and any impact it has is solely the responsibility of those who allow themselves to be impacted and they are responsible for any negative results that come from this.