scrap the segregation.  i love beating men at chess :)

all im sayin iz thiz.

after readin the article n then the commentz here, yeah, it will take a Ms. GM to knock down one of the top 10 male GMz so that thiz "man vs woman" chess debate can cool down a bit. itz a fun topic but some of ya'll are takin it WAAAAAYYY TO PERSONAL lol. by the way, havin a Ms. GM on the top 10 will possibly be a face-changin moment after bein underestimated for so long az women. im guy sayin that too lol  but i full well know that judith iz NOT the only woman that seekz to take on the guyz to reach to the top. other WGMz might also have that in them too. if they hav a golden heart n knowin that they hav skillz sharp enough to battle the guyz then by all meanz ladiez, go for it! call thoze guyz out lol! judith doin it, so can ya'll! 

iz it bad to have women-only tourneyz? well itz almost like other sportz. women got thei own baseball leaguez, basketball gamez, golf tourneyz, etc. itz not really sexizm but itz the way it iz. thoze who feel otherwise, i dont kno bout them. they probably have thei own personal beefz wit the issue or somethin. i might be missin thei pointz. i dont know lol but i myself am for women to have thei own chess tourneyz jus like they do in other sportz. but if they want to be included wit the men in chess tourneyz then by all meanz, let the girlz in. im all for that too.

when it comez to ladiez havin thei own titlez, im gonna leave that for the ladiez. even tho natalia made some strong pointz n edgeofdefeat expressed her experiencez, all im goin to say to thiz iz that they should be balanced, rating-wise. WGMz are between 2350-2550 n male GMz are 2600+? soundz awkward

 

but thatz my 2 coinz to this topic

I think we need to keep them. They are allowed to have their own titles. And besides, why would we get rid of them. Wouldn't it be a lot of trouble?

I agree completely with "thechessstick" on this.  Great idea!

The points raised by Natalia_Pogonina can be addressed by judiciously selecting who you invite to participate. A mix of strong, middle-ground and less established players would alleviate many of these issues.

1) Motivational - few girls can earn men's titles, but women's titles also stand for something.

This can be addressed by introducing levels in the titles, i.e, FM (category 1, cat. 2..etc). The point being, given time, strong women players will rise up to the top echelons. It would also mean that the average playing level will improve.

2) Differentiation - right now girls who have women's titles tend to play against women, while those who have men's titles usually play (a lot) in mixed events. Pools are different, therefore, ELO is different.

This is precisely what is being argued against. Why differentiate? Why not give the good players a chance to improve not just their game but also their playing (there is a big difference between the two!)

3)Image and benefits

Good point. From this perspective WGM/FM etc titles make sense. In todaay's super politically correct world, a lot of points can be scored by corporate sponsors by putting up money for women only events. However, are they doing more harm than good?

Women's titles should be scrapped, this is a boring argument to say..women are not as good..we all know that it has nothing to do with "strength" - so, let's get it scrapped so men can accept us for what we are...as long as there are separate categories, you will always have those that think women are not as good. We all know also all the reasons why there aren't so many women playing - if you don't know...you should do a study and keep yourself informed and updated with the facts..you are sleepy... so, men...accept us for what we are and appreciate the women that CAN play - with all the busy schedules inbetween - and us women that WANT to play..even if it is only for the fun of it. [that's me anyway] So, drop your pose and have fun.

hey listen this is not hard..Continue to have the Womens chess events and also if they choose can play in any open  tournamnet welcome to all. But if women can have their own chess championship which i support then when men have their own chess championship dont think they just dont want women to play. i say you can have all three (A Men's Championship, Womens championship and Open tournaments.

I think Womens chess and Womens Chess Championships should be encouraged and cultivated ; it's been the case for tennis, basketball, golf , bowling ....why not chess ?

Girls are by nature more comformist and boys strive to be more individual (Strive to be packleaders). It is in our nature as well as reinforced in our culture. Of course the genders overlapp so some girls are more like boys and som boys are more like girls.

To get better girls there would first have to be more players to pick from so the talented and hard working shine through. For more girls to play more interest would be requiered. Maybe it will come with time as with some sports. Therefore some incentives are good such as GM norms and separate competitions.

I have summarized my view on the problem of "Women in chess" in one of the articles for Chessbase. Eventually, if more women become good at chess, women's titles can be abolished. However, right now there are a few reasons for keeping them:

1) Motivational - few girls can earn men's titles, but women's titles also stand for something

2) Differentiation - right now girls who have women's titles tend to play against women, while those who have men's titles usually play (a lot) in mixed events. Pools are different, therefore, ELO is different.

3) Image and benefits - let's say there's a girl who's doing well for her age (e.g. has 2100 FIDE at 12). By FIDE's standards, she won't even be eligible for a CM title. However, she can obtain the WFM title and look more attractive for sponsors, e.g. claim that she's a master. That matters a lot since junior chess doesn't bring any money, only expenses.Another example: someone needs to hold an exhibition event with both women and men participating (that looks attractive for sponsors). If the organizers states that all the participants are grandmasters (while some of them may be 2700-rated GMs, while others can be 2300-rated WGMs), it sounds cool. And let's say he said "Ok, we will have male super grandmasters and a bunch of female FIDE masters" - wouldn't that sound weird?

WGM titles ought to be scrapped. If you don't have separate Math/Sci Olympiads for women, why have separate chess cycles? 

But then again you have to ask, why don't many capable women emulate Judith Polgar and compete in general/"men's" events?

i teach chess to a class of 7-9 year olds. There is just as much girls as boys. But what i have noticed is the competiveness between the boys that is not present with the girls - the boys would do anything (sometimes cheating) as long as they beat their friends. However, there is one girl who is the best player in the class. I asked the teacher about her and she was surprised that the girl is such a good player; she said the girl is often in trouble at the school- it seems to me that she is a little more "aggressive" than the other girls. Does this behaviour of competitiveness and maybe little more aggression in early life not contribute to chess playing? Then the culture in which the girls are brought up may contribute to their eventual playing skills. Meaning that, if the girls are instructed to bake cookies while the boys is always in competition playing competetive games (not only chess but soccer, cricket, rugby - all male dominated sport) then I think it contribute significantly to who is going to be more competitive. So woman have the capability but few are brought up like judit Polgar was - you know the Polgar story.

See also: http://www.chessvibes.com/columns/abolishing-women%E2%80%99s-titles-a-different-perspective/

[COMMENT DELETED]

I think they should keep them.  The New York Times may be jumping the gun a little.  There are still a lot of fields that women have been excluded from for so long that it takes a while to redress the balance. In classical music we now have some incredible female performers (considering women were once banned from orchestras) yet the world of the composer still seems to be a male dominated one. Perhaps the role of composer is seen as one that comes with more 'authority'?- the same is true in the world of film. Whose favourite film director is a women? No one any longer surely thinks women are less creative, organised or professional than men?  I am sceptical about the argument regarding the way our brains are hard-wired really making so much difference. Does Judith Polgar have a more male brain than me? (perhaps) We are looking at the performance of highly exceptional people, not the population as a whole. Categories that highlight the achievements of a once marginalised  section of society perform an important function in our world. We can only talk about concepts of 'fairness' when we all start from a level playing field. In this case, I am not sure we do.

Someone below mentioned that chess is a brain game and the brain doesn't depend on gender.  The second part of this statement is factually incorrect, as science has shown us. 

If you study brain science (or even read a popular book on the subject), you'll discover that male and female brains are wired very differently from each other.  That doesn't mean that one is better than the other, but it does mean that there are qualitative differences that equip one type of brain for some tasks and the other for another set of tasks.  This is an evolutionary mechanism that allows the two genders to complement (rather than overlap) each other in the characteristics they bring to the table (e.g., in a family), which makes families more resilient and the children more likely to survive. 

 

Some examples of qualitative differences are:

- one gender's brain is much better suited at handling details whereas the other's brain can better deal with general concepts and strategies (I can't remember precisely which is which right now).

- the women's left and right brains are connected much better, so signals can pass through in a more direct fashion than they do in men's brains (where the pipe is thin and generally not suited for much inter-brain communciation).

 

I hope this clears away the confusion on the subject.  A great book that I recommend for those of you curious to look up more information on this and other brain-related subjects is: "Brain Rules" by Dr. John Medina.  You can even find information (including multi-media) on this by looking up John Medina on the web.

I think it is fine just as it is. Women can decide for themselves if they want to play in what tournament. Most female players play in mixed tournaments.

I think with the current situation a young girl has many oppurtunities with chess. and with the same capabilies, can go further in chess than boys where the competition is much stronger.

I think we should simply ask, what purpose do women's titles serve and what purpose does it serve to separate men and women?

I like the idea of having women's chess tournaments, but the titles really make no sense at all.  What do you call someone who has earned the IM and WGM titles?

 I am a female player, but the majority of tournaments I play in are mixed gender. Of course, these are male dominated. This is the norm for me. So its not like females are playing in ONLY womens tournaments all the time. I only play in one or two female tournaments a year. Womens only tournaments (such as the US Womens Championship) help promote womens chess. Giving us the opportunity to meet other female players inspires us especially when we are the only or one of the only females that play in our area. Titles, however, are demeaning and unnecessary. Any woman can get a regular FIDE title just as easily as a a man. Most women who do earn both womens and mens titles usually accept the mens title over the womens title. (i.e. Irina Krush)