Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Why is there a Women's World Championship?


  • 6 years ago · Quote · #1

    staggerlee

    What is the point of segregating chess by gender?  What are people's thoughts on chess being co-ed all the time?

  • 6 years ago · Quote · #2

    Paunescu_ROU

    I don't see any point either, I think it's stupid. there are 2 posibilities: either women can't compete with men on chess or men are affraid to be embaraced :)   I think it should be mixed cometition!

  • 6 years ago · Quote · #3

    ericmittens

    There are mixed competition tournaments of course. (duh)

     

    But the best female players are no match for the best male players. It's good to have a seperate championship for them, to encourage other females to take up the game. The more the merrier.

  • 6 years ago · Quote · #4

    ericmittens

    Of course I've heard of Judit.

    Isn't she the only woman in the top 100?

    It is obvious that some physiological/psychological/social factors keep women from competing at the highest levels of chess. I don't claim to know what they are but the numbers don't lie...they are there.

    For that reason women should have their own world championship. At least they have a goal to work towards in their professional careers, a goal that may actually be achieved.

  • 6 years ago · Quote · #5

    AlecKeen

    It isn't that women are inherently weaker at Chess, but rather that far fewer play Chess, so in any statistical distribution of male vis-a-vis female players, there are likely to be a much greater number of male players at any level. If Chess players were divided 50-50 between the sexes, the number of top rank players would be likely to reflect that split.

    The same applies to female mathematicians, physicists, chemists, engineers. After all, in other sports/games where the participants are roughly equal in numbers, and where physical strength is not a major factor, women compete on equal terms e.g show jumping, three-day events.

  • 6 years ago · Quote · #6

    MainStreet

    For more silverware to give away... :)

  • 6 years ago · Quote · #7

    ericmittens

    If there wasn't a separate title for Women's World Champion and, more importantly tournaments with prize money for women only, then I believe a lot less women would be able to take up chess as a profession.

    Apart from Judit Polgar, the next strongest woman chess player ever is Humpy Koneru. She is around about 2600 level, and would find it hard to make a living playing chess if it wasn't for the fact that she is a woman.

  • 6 years ago · Quote · #8

    ericmittens

    LostCauseOne wrote:

     All professional chess players find it hard to make a living at chess... no matter who they are... and at what level they are at.


     That's not true.

    People in the world top 10-20 make a very nice living playing in the top tournaments for appearance fees. However, the average grandmaster (2500-2700) has a very difficult task in supporting themselves solely on chess. They either have to teach, write books (as you say), or travel around giving lectures...and even then, unless they are a well known teacher/author it is still very hard for them to make a comfortable living. Soviet players have an easier time at this because they have government sponsorship.

    I am saying that if there were not tournaments solely for women, women would have almost no opportunity to win prize money as there are many stronger men competing with them. Of course any IM or GM could walk into a small open tournament and wipe the floor with the players there. Do you know what the prize funds are like for small open tournaments? Here in canada the first prize for the largest tournaments is something like $500!

    Women need their own tournaments and championship. Financially and psychologically.

  • 6 years ago · Quote · #9

    batgirl

    The title of this thread asks why there is a Women's World Championship. That's a fair question and it's been asked over and over.  At one time there was Vera Menchik. While she competed with men, generally with only modest results, she stood a level above all other female competitors. In fact there were only a handful of women on the next level of ability who could even consider competeing against her.  She was the first Women's World Champion.

    Today, there are still hardly any women who can compete with men at the highest level. Today those few women have GM titles.  However, the next lower level of ability boasts a much more impressive field of women players - not as many as there are men at that level, but tremendously more than 50-75 years ago.  Something must be going right for the girls.

    I rather doubt we'll ever see a woman World Champion - not for lack of talent or for any genetic limitation, but for a general reluctance for women to put that kind of commitment into chess and for the incredible difference in the gender pools sizes.

    But I can't understand why that is important. Anyone of any ability can play successfully against others of similar ability.  World Championships, or even ratings, are not the be-all and end-all of chess.  I could even argue that they are relatively unimportant in the chessic scheme of things.  Chess is about people - people playing, people learning, people enjoying themselves.  It some women need women tournaments, and, therefore the logical result - women titles, including the championship title, then why would anyone begrudge them that which most completely facilitates their ability and desire to participate??

  • 6 years ago · Quote · #10

    Thanatos19

    Exactly. Correct me if I am wrong, but a woman can compete in the overall World Championship, correct?

  • 6 years ago · Quote · #11

    batgirl

    Sure, if she qualifies.  There are no gender restrictions.

  • 6 years ago · Quote · #12

    stanhope13

    There have always been distinctions, gender, nationality, even religon.

    Name me a female, black, jewish G. M.  YOU GET THE POINT.

  • 6 years ago · Quote · #13

    batgirl

    stanhope13 wrote:

    There have always been distinctions, gender, nationality, even religon.

    Name me a female, black, jewish G. M.  YOU GET THE POINT.

    Not especially.  What's the point? 

  • 6 years ago · Quote · #14

    ericmittens

    batgirl wrote:

    stanhope13 wrote:

    There have always been distinctions, gender, nationality, even religon.

    Name me a female, black, jewish G. M.  YOU GET THE POINT.

     

    Not especially.  What's the point?


     I don't get the point either

  • 6 years ago · Quote · #15

    marysson

    [COMMENT DELETED]
  • 6 years ago · Quote · #16

    Thanatos19

    Ahha. So women have a world championship because women want a world championship. So therefore, its not sexist, so why do we care?

  • 6 years ago · Quote · #17

    ericmittens

    We dont really.

  • 6 years ago · Quote · #18

    Akuni

    Actually, if you compare the open Championship games from tournaments and matches like San Luis 2005 and Kramnik vs Leko, the women's championshsips are almost always more exciting, with fewer draws and more vicious games, and are more accesible to the public as they don't come close to the strength and depth of the Open Championship.

     

    3 cents...

  • 6 years ago · Quote · #19

    batgirl

    "the women's championshsips are almost always more exciting, with fewer draws and more vicious games, and are more accesible to the public as they don't come close to the strength and depth of the Open Championship."

     

    I agree totally.  Women tend not to play for draws. And the games tend to be less esoteric and more brawl-ish.

  • 6 years ago · Quote · #20

    marysson

    [COMMENT DELETED]

Back to Top

Post your reply: