with in the next 10 years there will be a women world champion is this possible are woman closing the gap on men in the chess world

Nothing against women, but no. They aren't "catching up" that fast, and for whatever reason there are simply too few of them in chess.

Of course, there already is a women's world champion, GM Alexandra Kosteniuk

Well, a girl horse won the Preakness so who knows what can happen.

hi nothing againsnt women but this wl take some time hopfuly not long 

I think Hou Yifan is currently the highest rated 15-year old, with 2586 FIDE. Who knows?

Well i think Kirsty Gunning will be the woman world champ after ten years working in chess.com and she will throw the GM Alexandra Kosteniuk.

I don't know if they are closing the gap, but it's not impossible. I don't think there is a need to focus on the World Champion title exclusively though. Very few people regardless of their gender can get the title anyway. There are thousand GMs and handful world champions. As long as there are women competing for the top spot, everything is on the right track. 

Not sure what you mean by closing the gap because it doesn't have much to do with gender -- for example no matter how much I progress I'll never be a world champ and I'm male... that goes for all the male players in my area, it simply depends on the individual regardless of gender.

In studies it's shown that women make the upper ranks (such as the GM title) as much as expected for their representation.  If as many woman played and studied as men a female world champion would be equally as likely as a male WC ... depending on more important things such as skill, hard work, and mentality.  If as few men participated as women it would be highly unlikely for there to be more than a handful of people as skilled as a modern 2600+ player simply statistically speaking.

Just like when you walk into a local club the chance that you'll run into a GM is low.  If you increase the pool of players to 1 billion then it's highly likely you'll have players 2700+ etc.

So I suppose it does make sense to say close the gap when you say it in terms of participation.  The more women that play the more likely you are to create the "perfect storm" for a dominate world champion (who happens to be female).

I still fail to see why there is any need to refer to, or classify, chessplayers by their gender - for any reason. Unlike in competitions such as weightlifting, tennis and track - where men have a clear physical advantage - in chess there are no physical or mental advantages to be had according to one's sex. A spelling competition, for example, could have a male or female champion, and it's no big deal either way.So why in chess?

The creation of special women's titles may be seen as "throwing a bone" to female players since, numerically speaking, there is less chance for an abundance of titled women players. However, this is actually an insult to women, as if to say that women are somehow disadvantaged and thus deserve lowered requirements for obtaining a title. If I were a woman, I would refuse to apply for or accept a title like WGM, just as I would refuse to wear the Scarlet Letter.

I'm not sure why they have women's titles beyond trying to attract more women to the game?  I tend to agree with you thought that special women's titles are insulting as gender has just about nothing to do with determining intelligence.

I also find these titles vaguely insulting.

You're looking at this wrong. Title's don't necessarily imply any inherent difference in chess abilities based on gender. They are just to encourage more female players to be able to participate in tournaments, have titles, sponsors, prize money etc. If this weren't the case, Natalia Pogonina we know here in chess com (and many other female masters) wouldn't be able to rely on chess financially, as she is no where near close to being in top 20 in general chess rankings.

The reason for this unbalanced situation lies NOT in any gender's inherent aptness for the game, but in the patriarchy the human race has been living through for ages, and keeps doing so with very minor improvements. It's similar with jobs: there are far more men with jobs than women all over the world, but that doesn't mean women are inferior at working whatsoever. Having seperate titles for women in chess is similar to positive regulations of having a minimum percentage of female workers in certain workplaces, or in some countries, for example, political party representors etc.

It's for encouragement and an attempt at closing the gap caused by cultural/ideological backgrounds in societies.

Hmm, ok, I guess that makes sense.

As a side topic I wonder if facing a female opponent means anything special to male players.  I saw one topic say there was nothing more humiliating to lose to a female player and I wonder how exaggerated that is.  I've lost club and tournament games to female players who were equal and stronger than me, and I never cared any more during or after the game than I would have against a male player.  I actually enjoyed one, she sacrificed 3 (!) minor pieces to mate/win tons of material, I resigned in something like 30 moves.

philidor_position said:

The reason for this unbalanced situation lies NOT in any gender's inherent aptness for the game, but in the patriarchy the human race has been living through for ages, and keeps doing so with very minor improvements. It's similar with jobs: there are far more men with jobs than women all over the world, but that doesn't mean women are inferior at working whatsoever. Having seperate titles for women in chess is similar to positive regulations of having a minimum percentage of female workers in certain workplaces, or in some countries, for example, political party representors etc.

You are obviously referring to the Affirmative Action policy that exists in the US. This is nothing more than reverse discrimination, for it deprives qualified males of positions they might otherwise have received. Creating special chess titles for women not only insults women on the one hand, but on the other hand also denies men equivalent status. If you lower the standards for women, why not for men as well?

No I wasn't specifically talking about U.S. I don't know how this is implemented there, and I'm not putting forth such measures as an ultimate solution in gender politics as the problem is pretty deep, but I'm nowhere near rendering this as an insult to women either.

Oh and don't you worry about "unfair treatment" to men, they have looots and lots of privilages in the current state of affairs all over the world. Certainly more than enough to be a cry baby about it.

Common sense would agree with you, but that's not how it is, which is and has always been really strange. Women just seem to have more trouble getting to the top, and there has never been a women's world champion, not even someone who directly contested for it in a match. Why is debatable. It could be they're not as obsessive and won't want to study openings like crazy (which you have to do at the top level) but maybe just want to use natural skill, I don't know. There are also less women who like to solve sudoku puzzles, stuff like that than men (well I would think so anyways. I only see men doing that!), and that problem solving is an important skill in chess.

I can totally see why people would think it's insulting to women to have different titles, but you know is there anyway women can be treated better without it being looking insulting? I'm sure women are pretty happy with having decent chances to win in their women only tournaments. At least they're not getting crushed by Super GM's all the time.

if women / girls want to be a world champion, the first thing they have to do is to approach the Fide to get equal rating system for awarding titles. The present rating system for the titles--- in my opinion--- is actually an insult to the women players.

 In this matter  i agree with Mr rubigabby.

Chess has no genders. When the women get their equal rights on rating system,there we can see more women /girls on the top and there willl be a world champion for sure.

Thirukkalathy,Chennai 

Most likely, it's the women's titles that increased the amount of female players, even though it's still really low.

philidor_position said:

Oh and don't you worry about "unfair treatment" to men, they have looots and lots of privilages in the current state of affairs all over the world. Certainly more than enough to be a cry baby about it.

Nobody's being a "cry baby," and there's no need to resort to name calling to make your point. My point was simply that two wrongs don't make a right; that it is wrong to punish current generations for the sins and errors of the past.

 orangehonda said:

As a side topic I wonder if facing a female opponent means anything special to male players.  I saw one topic say there was nothing more humiliating to lose to a female player and I wonder how exaggerated that is.  I've lost club and tournament games to female players who were equal and stronger than me, and I never cared any more during or after the game than I would have against a male player.  I actually enjoyed one, she sacrificed 3 (!) minor pieces to mate/win tons of material, I resigned in something like 30 moves.

You can see my blog on this subject. Additionally, since joining chesscom, I have played (as far as I know) against two females, one of them being Kochai herself. She beat me once and then I beat her twice. However, I didn't find out that she was a she until a week ago! This did not change anything for me emotionally or otherwise. I am currently playing in a tournament which includes two games (black/white) against a young female. Again, as far as I'm concerned, I'm simply playing against another member of chesscom.

Until the current generation stops sinning your point rings hollow.