zlacker

>>throwu+(OP)
There was similar drama exactly a year ago recently about a woman chess player wearing "sport shoes": https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/28/world/asia/chess-fine-sho...

>>dist-e+BQ
The rules specifically said "dress to impress" and she wore thousand dollar shoes. Ridiculous. Good for Magnus, somebody needs to take a stand and he's got the clout to do so.

>>boothb+sX
The rules specifically said "dress to impress" and she wore thousand dollar shoes.

Maybe not everyone is impressed by money?

>>reaper+mY
That's an abuse of quantifiers, and an interesting one. You suggest that the judges become literal fashion police, each individual with the authority to remove a contestant whose clothes are not impressive in their personal opinion. That should indeed be protested against; it's a chess tournament and not a fashion show.

The word "to" is commonly interpreted to mean "for the purpose of" in this context. That is, the contestant should put effort into making their appearance impressive. Which, I also find offensive, but to a lesser degree.

I'd propose that they certainly aren't "sport" sneakers, which is what she got dinged for. Unless you're a multi-millionaire playing tennis in a country club, I guess -- but the only reason a person would wear those particular shoes in sport would be to impress their peers.

And if you're not personally impressed by money, how would you interpret the "dress to impress" guideline? Would you find any shoes to be impressive? Perhaps no shoes at all? I'd lean towards 6" platforms, myself, as some people find tallness impressive.

>>boothb+T41
You suggest that the judges become literal fashion police, each individual with the authority to remove a contestant whose clothes are not impressive in their personal opinion.

See also: Tennis. Schools. Restaurants. Courtrooms. Offices. Stores. Even public sidewalks.

Welcome to society.