http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5834

What do you think ?

I'm sure I'd be a lout no matter which side I came down on.

Instead I'd like to see a poll of the title holders in question and go by their decision. If one day they don't see the utility in the titles then they should no longer exist.

Fireworks. Parades. Another advancement.

I think FIDE gets money from the title applications and that reduces the chances of extinguishing WIM and WGM.

Yes, its about money with FIDE so I doubt it will ever happen, even if all the women want it ! Thats why there is also the FM and now the CM titles...... there is also a fee attached.

if it came to men vs women voting the title out then we all know wot would happen. Womens titles would be lost forever and i dont think that is very fair.

At some point, I don't see why not, today though? Not a chance.

Looks like at least a few of the women with the titles are willing to de-segregate the title. I don't think it would be a majority of them but it would be really interesting to know.

But yes, why is FIDE going to give up a cash cow like that? I'm surprised we don't see a constant proliferation of new titles like a Junior Series where if you're 12 years old and your rating is at least 1900 FIDE than you become a Junior Grandmaster (after your cheque clears).

FIDE, I want 10% for the suggestion.

Holy crap! FIDE is pronounced Fee-Day?  All these years...

Thanks for that, made me lol

No.  I would never have known there were so many highly rated/gifted females in chess were it not for women's titles.

Um, how do I put this delicately.  Chess is a boys only treehouse.  Sometimes not so nice things about women's native abilities are said and heard.  It's nice to see a showcase of talent to counterbalance the discouraging deep voices.

Are there "men's" only tournaments? (I imagine that there are none and if one exists I bet there are Woman's/Feminists groups who might have a word or two about that . . . ) If not, I can't imagine why women should have their own with their own "titles". Demeaning. So demeaning.

Unfortunetly they are a necessity in an imperfect world, to help encourage further female participation within the sport. 

Don't you think that the existance of womens' only titles is making a statement about women's native abilities?

No.  The lower ratings of women can be explained solely by nurture as well.

Since equality is the a prevalent part of society we all like to pretend is real.

We like to pretend chess provides an equal opportunity for women.  You've read the threads.  One woman was denied access to a chess club because she is female.  One guy I played wrote he would quit chess if he lost to a woman.  And on and on.  If women's-only tournaments are sexist, then they are but a grain of sand in Chess Beach.

Anyway, you've raised valid points.  The men/women issue has been hacked to death...so I will stop here.

Its like women only gyms. I don't think women realize A. The double standard they are enjoying and B. How submissive and weak "women's" only stuff makes them look.BUT when something is "men's" only they want in. Its like women want or need to be segregated whenever they feel uncomfortable or nervous instead of actually being part of society. Women's only anything is beyond demeaning.

ya know, having these threads is going to open a Pandoras box

i don't believe you *guys* don't see that

who (which race/nationality/sexual orientation) are you going to quantify next?

[still shaking head]

whatev.

I agree, women-only titles, that are inherently LOWER than the same men's titles, makes them look foolish. Chess is a game, plain and simple.  If you are 2500, you are in GM range.  If you are 2300, you are not.  Period. 

I like the idea of static titles, across the board. Handicapping is insulting, both to men and women!

I agree. If women ARE worse at chess than men, why not prove it once and for all with separate titles? I think the women's titles are an attempt at keeping the issue cloudy.