Woman world championships and titles - aren't they an insult ?

In most forms of sport there is a gender segregation. For example there are male boxing championships and female boxing championships. This is absolute appropriate, since men are bigger in average, have more muscles, whereas women have more body fat etc. A direct competition wouldn't be fair (same counts for physically disabled people, so that we have for example the Paralympics for them, where they compete against each other and the unfair body advantages are neutralized). This biological diffrences make it neccessary to separate the genders and not let men box against women.

In chess however the natural distinctions of the body don't play a role. It's not male body -vs- female body but male brain vs female brain. So if there are, like in other sports, gender separations in chess, doesn't this imply that female brains are inferior to male brains ? That woman are not capable of the same mental performance like man, can't compete with them because of a mental disadvantage and therefore need their own championships ? Or why exactly do we need a gender seperation here, like in male and femal world championships (the female is running right now, without much attention, compared to the carslen/anand fight btw.) ? Isn't such a gender separation in a mind game actually a mockery of the female mental performance ability ?

It is actually a good thing for women. Despite many of them are very strong, they are just not able to compete with their male colleagues (e.g. Polgar in London Chess Classic), despite they occassionally get some good results (Hou Yifan in Tata Steel 2013, she finished 11th, above Caruana, Sokolov and L'Ami). Nevetheless, they just would have any chances to compete for the world championship. But If one of them would finished in top three in World Cup or get in top 10 by rating, she would (probably) be able to compete in Candidates tournament, hence having a chance in WCC. But there was no woman to do that yet.

Anything can be an insult if one takes it as an insult.

No, it is insulting. Gender leagues are okay in physical contact sports, because male professionals obtain an advantage by default just for being men, so pitting them against women would be unsportsmanlike; Top women simply cannot compete with top men in any sports.

Chess is a mind game based on abstract concepts, hence there is no gender handicap unless you insinuate that women are on average dumber than men, for which there doesn't seem to be any evidence.

Segregating women into their own league only promotes the idea that women can never be as good as men in chess which is wrong.

I feel deeply insulted just thinking about Vera Menchik. The world would have been such a much better place if she never had been allowed to participate in a Women's World Championship.

Sure, but men aren't allowed to play in ANY "female" event. There is an inequality here, I'm just not sure if it matters or not.

You mean this Vera Menchik?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlsbad_1929_chess_tournament

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_1935_chess_tournament

@NewArdweaden Polgar was in the world's top 10 throughout 2004 and 2005.

Why is she first playing for Czechslovakia and then for England?

Vera Menchik may have been farther ahead of the other women in her time than Judit Polgar is from her "peers."  But I don't think someone can really compare Judit and Vera's career achievements as being equal.  Judit peaked as one of the Top 10 players in the world; Menchik by contrast only managed #52 (according to chessmetrics, the best ranking system I have at my disposal prior to the official FIDE rankings).  It could be noted that Maia Chiburdanidze peaked at #42 (again, using chessmetrics).

As for Judit Polgar's recent tournament in London, it should be remembered that she is basically semi-retired as an active player ... her performance had nothing to do with the fact that she is female. While I wouldn't compare her career to Kasparov or Kramnik or Anand ... in the past Judit did compete successfully with the best in the world.

OK so if they only had inter-gender play then how many women would you see competing at the highest level?  Last time I looked there was only 1 woman (Polgar) in the top 100.

I think probably it just isn't as popular among women so there are not so many in the pool and not too many persue it as a career.

Having women separate is a good thing to encourage more to compete and enter the sport.

So, ah, you're suggesting perhaps rewording it to "Women's Championship" (leaving out 'world', as really, half the population's excluded by definition)?

sftac

I think that's the reason its patronizing to women. If women can compete equally they don't need all women tournaments. If women are inferior chess players then they do need their own (inferior) titles and (inferior) tournaments. Were I a woman I'd find it highly offensive to be offered an inferior title with the prefix woman on it. That's the point. I see no reason to patronize women like that and I think it takes away from the fact that women play just as well as men. The only reason they don't have as many high rated players is because chess tends to be a bit of a sausage fest, like most gamers clubs in general are. Women are just under represented as a percentage of players. There's no reason to insult them with inferior titles. My .02 cents.

I am of the opinion that it's time for the gender separation in chess to go.  It has served its purpose; it gave women a venue in which to compete at a time when nothing else was available.  It was a "leg up" in an era when the sociological consensus dictated that women were not as capable as men were in the intellectual arena.  Today we know that's crap.

Now: if the standards for competition and titling were identical between men's and women's competitions, no problem -- I'm cool with that.  It's when those standards are lowered for one sex or the other that I have issues.

I don't care whether you have boobs or not.  If you can hack it, you can hack it, and if you can't, fine -- but don't ask the rest of the world to lower its standards to enhance your own personal validation.  For chess in particular, I don't see any reason to continue with separate men's and women's divisions. 

Does this mean there will be fewer female competitors?  Maybe at first, but I look for that to change radically.  I know if I was shoved into competing only in a women's division without access to the men's, I'd be pissed -- and a lot of that is because of the lower standards women's divisions usually have.  I'd rather compete with the "big boys" for a title than wimp out for an equivalent with lower standards.  That's insulting, lol!

@Ron-Weasley: + 1000  :D

Why not just call it "Special" World Chess Championship, as the Special World Olympics are managed?

sftac

Very special, sftac

um... nice profile pic?

lol funny that Ron Weasly is agreeing with Voldemort (the OP).

When he's not death eating or skulking 'round Knockturn Alley he's at the same Wizard Chess tournaments as the Weasley family.