Why haven't Susan and Judit argued to stop the segregation of men and women in the chess world. It is clear that men are more physically entailed then women (that is why sports are segregated), but not in the mind. Why haven't they questioned this, or have they?

woman are allowed to join the same tournaments as men so i dont see your point. the only tournaments i've heard of being just one sex allowed was woman only tournaments if anyone could complain it would be the men since they never have a Male only Usa championship match for an example (though the USA championship most of the time comes down to a bunch of men in the end).

they are less woman that play so you dont see them in big tournaments as often as males and I do believe they have something called the Polgar chess school that reaches out to young females to try to get more girls into chess.

Chessmatician, you raise an excellent question. The gender segregation that persists in the world of competitive chess is patently absurd and should have gone the way of the dodo long ago. Anybody who thinks that a dynamo like Alexandra Kosteniuk couldn't hold her own against any top-rated male player is oblivious to reality. Perhaps we should start a grassroots movement to abolish this preposterous sexism in chess once and for all.

I recall reading somewhere that Judit doesn't play in women-only tournaments, not because she's against them on moral principle, but because for the most part, she would not play against similarly-rated players (she was over 2700 before any other women broke 2600).  Susan, on the other hand, has definitely won the women's world championship at least once -- but then again, she's significantly lower-rated than Judit, so she might get players close to her rating level even in a women-only tournament.

As for whether or not men have an advantage "in the mind" as you say, there is some reason to think they might.  [After all, something like 95% of tournament players are men, but 99% of masters are men.]  Or it could just be societal influences, or both. 

Evan, how do you think Kosteniuk would do in a 10-game match against Anand? 

My own opinion is that we might benefit by distinguishing between women's titles (e.g. WIM, WGM) and women-only tournaments.  I'd be against the titles, but not necessarily against the tournaments.  There are reasons other than chess strength that one might want to segregate, e.g. geographical championships, like a championship limited to a city, county, or state.  Just because such a tournament is "segregated" (i.e. limited to players from that area) doesn't mean that anything is being implied about the strength of those players -- they could be weaker on average or stronger on average than outsiders.  [I wonder if the USSR or Russian Championship was ever tougher in overall competition than the World Championship!] 

I believe, however, that stating WGM or WIM is sort of downgrading. Why should women have to be seen as a 'Womens Grand Master' or 'Womens International Master'. Why cant they be seen as just normal GM's or IM's. By FIDE stating WGM and WIM they are hinting and sort of trying to portray that men are and should be in a different league than women.

Well... in response to the post directly above. ... (#6)

They've made it a lot easier to achieve a WIM/WGM title.  If they abolished the title (and god forbid actually did something fairly), there would be very few women achieving these titles (not for lack of intelligence, just for lack of performance historically).  Someone up there decided adding WIM and WGM titles (which are still far from easy to obtain) would help the limited women's community.  Personally I think we should keep them... people just need to keep in mind that hey, a male FM is actually probably a little stronger than a female IM.  ... Better than most of us will ever be anyways.

Chessmatician, as I said, I'm also against the use of these women's titles.  But the standards are much lower for WIM and WGM than for IM and GM.  So just because a woman makes WIM or WGM doesn't mean she should just be seen as an IM or GM -- in all likelihood, she hasn't (yet) reached that level.  It isn't the case that the women "have to be seen" as WIM or WGM, but I agree that these are very artificial titles.  I'm against these titles because they're largely unnecessary/redundant, not because I think they're insulting.  Anyone who makes WIM or WGM is a really strong player!  Same for IM and NM, of course.

I was having this very same conversation a few nights ago, and I see your point.

There was a survey question on this a few days ago here at chess.com. Most people said that it's probably demeaning to women, which it is. There should be no separation.

Age and geographical area both seem to me acceptable reasons to separate players in tournaments. On the other hand there is race, religion, political views, and gender... It's just wrong, I think.

Xavier, I have no problem separating (i.e having separate tournaments) by age, geographical area, OR gender.  What are your criteria for labeling gender-based segregation "just wrong," while other kinds of segregation are OK?  In any case, my main point is that segregation in and of itself doesn't necessarily imply any kind of insult to any group.  Do you agree?

Can someone explain the actual difference between the women's titles and the regular ones?  All I've been able to find is that the standards are similar but lower.

WGM is almost an oxymoron.  The only reason that women are earning grandmaster status now is because GM status doesn't mean as much anymore.  In 1972, there were only 88 grandmasters.  Now, there are over 1200.  This just shows that the bar has to be raised to maybe 2600, 2650 for GM status, as there are now too many if women are achieving it.  Also, Alexandra Kostenuik would almost certainly lose at least 80% of the time against Anand, seeing as she is rated more than 250 points lower (for good reason).  I apologize if this seems rude or sexist, but facts are facts.

I meant it seems wrong to me... I tried to point out how obviously wrong, also, as race or religion-based sport segregation, I find it insulting. Chess is only a matter of capability, one's gender is no reason for playing better or worse.

As for your main point, I couldn't agree more.

CorrespondenceCal, you're right to point out the lower standard for GM status.  But I thought that the real evidence for this is in the (natural?) tendency for ratings to rise over time, not in the number of GMs that exist.  I think that number could increase from computer/technology improvements alone, just as the number of young GMs has increased over time (suppose we define young by some arbitrary age, e.g. 18 years or younger).  I agree with your facts, but not with your claim that "there are now too many (GMs) if women are achieving it."  That claim does seem sexist to me!  I suppose we could debate cases like Kosteniuk or Susan Polgar, but surely you don't begrudge Judit Polgar her GM status, do you?  I agree Anand would easily beat Kosteniuk in a match, but I don't think even 250 points justifies the prediction of him winning "at least 80% of the time."  I'd say at most 80% of the time.  Got the stats for that?   

Well there is that lawsuit pending...

P.S.  It's tempting to use the example of Judit Polgar and Kasparov, but I understand she has an abysmal record against him, despite winning at least once.  (Maybe we can say "at least twice," since he cheated to beat her by violating the touch-move rule after he blundered!)  Anyone got her overall record against Anand?

Theoretically, a 250 FIDE rating difference corresponds to an 80% score for the higher-rated player.