12567 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
I allow myself to believe that a man who goes on record REPEATEDLY ranting against JEWS has a hate for them. Or do you think he really has nothing against them but just says these things for kicks? Think before correct others Reb.
Reb never once said that Fischer did not dislike Jewsish people, he stated that Fischer obviously did not dislike ALL Jewish people.
Fischer probably did not really dislike Jewish people anyways, he was a little unbalanced.
I hope a top reason for a Womans Chess Championship is to involve more women in the game.
I think chess is a game that is good for people. The game is good for brain health. I like to see as many options available that encourage people to play chess. That is what I like about chess.com. It has a mode of play to suit every personality and confort level.
Reb was defending you.
The only rational argument I can see against women-specific tournaments is that prize money that might otherwise go to the open or general tournament (not men's tournaments as several folks referred to them) may be spent on women who may not be as strong or play as well as the men who would have benefited from the extra available prize money. But even this argument is specious at best since prize money is no one's to claim, but the tournament organizers right to assign and everyone generally enters tournaments with the prize money already allocated so the surprises are usually minimum.
Whether women should be able to play together and have their own titles really has little need for anyone's approval or consent other than FIDE's acceptance of the titles and results - both of which are in FIDE's best interest.
Folks, chess isn't only about who is the best and it's not only about the top 10 players in the world. Believe it or not, it's not only about perfect play nor only winning. Chess is about playing. The things that motivate people to play in tournaments while facilitating and encouraging further pariticpation, should never be denigrated nor maligned, especially simply because it affronts someone's misconception of fairness.
It isn't so important for women to play against men as it is for women to play.
I used to feel that women-specific tournaments somehow lessened chess and held women back. I've done a 180. Chess is about playing and for whatever reasons, although women can compete against men (successfully or unsucessfully) many prefer to play only other women and live within that minor environment (i.e. knowing their titles, etc. are comparatively less significant - WGM vs. GM, eg.). Without this system, many of these women would just not play.
Agreed -- I said at the beginning of this thread that the primary value of women only tournaments is the exposure it gives to exceptional female players, and hopefully the desire it ignites in young prospective female players to pursue the game in a more serious manner. Without this, the proportion will likely forever remain out of balance and the misperceptions I've seen throughout this thread will continue to perpetuate.
I partially agree with batgirl and partially disagree.
The part I disagree about is the "misperception of fairness". Unlike many of the posters, I don't see any fundamental reason why women should play stronger or weaker than men. I have heard many of the arguments and I just don't agree with them. I agree with the sentiment "that which encourages participation is good for women's chess" but struggle internally with the apparent contradiction that officially sanctioned women-only tournaments/titles gives the appearance of an official position that women don't play as well.
For those linguists out there, is this irony? In order to achieve a certain aim, one takes an action which has the appearance of being opposite? If not, what is it?
Yeah, they have to admit that women are worse or would lose to the best men, it's a fact though and they just want more women to play if they have a better chance to win. If there wasn't a women's world championship, women would get discouraged and there would be much less willing to play, and we want more women to play since so few of them do.
Also, if there are more women, it will probably make women better and willing to improve. They may eventually catch up to the men. But if they were equal skill level, there would be no point of a women's world championship. It's easier to say that with sports, since men are naturally more physically strong. But with chess you would think it's equal. Women have equal capabilities, so I think it has to do with how much time they put into it compared to men.
It really feels just like a numbers game. If 10 times the women played compared with today, there would be that many more world class players.
I can't believe how obtuse most of these posts are.
Here are 8 high-ranked brother and sister pairs. In 3 cases, the females are higher ranked than the males, and in 5, the males rank higher than the females. Statistically, this doesn't tell us much, but it doesn't strongly suggest that one sex is inherently better at chess than the other:
Cramling, Pia SISTER 2528Cramling, Dan BROTHER 2409Hunt, Harriet V SISTER 2461Hunt, Adam C BROTHER 2433Houska, Jovanka SISTER 2402Houska, Miroslav BROTHER 2284Shahade, Jennifer SISTER 2322Shahade, Gregory BROTHER 2446Grosar, Kiti SISTER 2219Grosar, Aljosa BROTHER 2416Kunte, Mrunalini SISTER 2124Kunte, Abhijit BROTHER 2513Maksimovic, Suzana SISTER 2299Maksimovic, Branimir BROTHER 2418Mamedjarova, Turkan SISTER 2255Mamedyarov, Shakhriyar BROTHER 2725
Interesting post, thanks!
I'm not so sure a sample size of 8 suggests anything, strongly or otherwise.
Yes, I think I already said that in my post.
The metrics I would start tracking, for both boys and girls, would be:
There's been a lot of study done on the drop in science and math among females in puberty. The current theory is that the social relationships developing at the time push girls out of those fields. My niece is going to a private school just for middle school for that very reason. I wouldn't be surprised if the same effect is happening in Chess.
Good point, why reinvent the wheel?
To claim billions of pounds for coming up with one of the most revolutionary devices in all of history?
It is pretty similar. It's only at the absolute top level where the differences are quite noticeable. And of course the world championship is the top level.
Average rating of top10 women - 2562,6
Average rating of top10 men - 2763,7
Average difference - 201,1
But the differences of gender is hardly noticeable on level below 2300.
If the question "Why is there a women's world (chess) championship?" is intended to mean the same as "Why must there be a women's world championship?", then the answer ought to be just that "there doesn't need to be one; some people just wanted one." I don't see why this is criticized as if it's illegitimate. Suppose top 100 players in the world had a mean rating of 2650 and that the top 100 players in the USA had a mean rating of 2450. Would this make a US Chess Championship illegitimate? The same goes for all kinds of distinctions -- by age, grade level, geography, federation, et cetera, even for racial and/or ethnic groups, as ridiculous as that may sound. There's no absolute need to have these particular distinctions, but that's not the same thing as saying we cannot legitimately have them.
The issue of whether or not it's wisest for women to play in women-only events, for purposes of their chess development (i.e. the argument that they will face weaker competition), is a separate question from the issue of whether women can legitimately have such events.
Chickenhead Cut-off Ending
by Scottrf a few minutes ago
Cannot add utube videos no more!!
by flubdub a few minutes ago
Most Active member race with Macer
by macer75 2 minutes ago
If you could combine two chess pieces powers what would the two pieces be???????
by nameno1had 3 minutes ago
what the #$%^was he playing and how did he win?
by Somebodysson 3 minutes ago
0-2224 in less than three years
by TheGreatOogieBoogie 5 minutes ago
The Ultimate Test of Engine Fanatics
by Pawnpusher3 5 minutes ago
12/12/2013 - Polugaevsky - Szilayi, Moscow 1960
by jonath99 8 minutes ago
by roi_g11 9 minutes ago
How do I go about studying the middlegame
by Goob63 10 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2013 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!