It seems to me that separate Women's titles gives the (very wrong) impression that women can't handle their chess and that they are inherently weaker players than the men.
The main reasons for which women have not quite succeeded in the realms of chess are of social nature. Just like many other occupations, chess has not been seen as a serious profession for a lady and, as such, women have not been encouraged enough to have a real shot at becoming #1, at least for a few years.
There are no serious medical/scientific grounds to justify the belief that women don't have the ability to play chess just as good as a man. That is why, as a man, I consider the idea of separate women's titles in chess very offensive, demeaning, etc.
Missing an option:
Women should have to compete with men. Chess is not a physical sport (if it even is a sport), like boxing or soccer.
The women's titles are statistically valid so they can't really be considered demeaning. A certain % of men get each title and this same % is applied to women but due to the different pool, the women's titles happen to be easier to achieve. Still, I don't think there is enough benefit to compensate for the overhead. Women should voice their opinions on this issue.
In any case, the strongest and most ambitious women have earned the standard GM title and compete regularly in elite events. The prime example of this is Judit Polgar. Hopefully, there will eventually be enough like her so that women's titles will be silly.
There is no reason women cannot compete with men. Given the opportunity we would quickly see women competing with men for the major titles limited now to men only, including world champion. This is a century overdue at least. Tradition is standing in the way of equality once again. Time for the powers that be in chess organizations to wake up and remove the barriers.
Too confusing having separate titles just for women
Giving women different titles that are easier to achieve somewhat defeats the purpose of having titles. They should be done away with because there is no serious reason to believe that women can't achieve at the level required for men to be considered a FM/IM/GM. Lowering the expectations does an injustice to the credibility of the ranks. In time (5 to 10 years), I think that FIDE should simply remove the distinction and require the same performance from both genders.
Well, if we're going to have a World title based on gender, since women as it stands are finding it impossible to compete for the Men's world title...then we should have another based on race to include the East Asians (who as a group about as competitive as the women), and another based on age groups (Senior World Champion -- 50 years and older, like Golf's PGA). If women are given the chance simply because they are women, then at least a few other groups should be given that chance.
There are some reasonable and unreasonable titles -- nobody worth their salt would be clamoring for a Left Handed World Champion or a Homosexual World Champion. Older age and certain races are not unreasonable title categories, at least not any more so than gender.
I'm making a point, but I'm half serious -- do we really need to classify chess players? If we insist on it, we'd better be fair.
There should be one more sentence to vote: Not fair to women since they cannot have a chance to prove that they can defeat men champions.
It is a scientifically proven FACT that as a whole, women are simply not as capable as men when it comes to activities requiring logic and reasoning skills. There is no single reason there aren't more champion women. Ultimately, they are:
1. Women have a difficulty understanding chess logic, so they lack the motivation to play. The greatest female chess player will simply never be able to beat the greatest male chess player hands-down. It's the same in EVERY sport, including those that require little to no physical abilities (billiards, for example).
2. Due to #1, there are very few female chess players, so there is no social trend for women to follow. Most women lack individuality and prefer to do things popularized by the general public. Those do that have individuality are of the type [minority] that you will find in places such as online video game servers, or *ahem* chess competitions.
Justin W. Chandler
Well, I've learned, the hard way, that the game of chess itself is gender neutral. Yet, since it has been viewed as male dominated throughout most of its existance. Like all male dominated endevours women seem, my opinion here, to be reluctant to challenge the status quo.
Perhaps if there was a women's league type arrangement more women would become involved in the first place. It would hopefully be less threatening for newbies, incenting them to "get into the game" sans any condescending comments from us neanderthals. With confidence in one's ability comes the seeking of stronger opponents regardless of gender.
If history is any indication perhaps we men should discourage women from even considering the game. Let's face it guys, give'em an inch and the next you know they're kickin' our softer parts.
I'm for anything that brings more women into the fold. So two paths that merge at the "grand poobah" stretch has some merit.
I'd love to see a member of the "kinder, gentler" members of society sitting across from one of stodgy old-style gurus, blowing cigar smoke in his face and kick butt. In fact I'd like to see my daughter at that table. After she finishes her second term in the White House of course.
sign me,
Proud pappa with a strong reverance and respect for the true holders of the power!!
Having separate titles for women is absurd. It's demeaning and I doubt there is a single woman who would think that is a good thing.
i wish i could have voted for two. because it is a great way to encourage women, but it would be taken the wrong way by some. And it would be demeaning, which is why i voted for it
I suppose that "could be demeaning to women" infers "a great way to encourage women chess, but could be demeaning to women". At least that's what I think when I give my answer, and what I think indeed of those women titles.
The women's titles are now obsolete. At the latest, they became obsolete when Judith Polgar became a GM in the usual way at a record age for either gender, not by near-acclamation (based on winning at Lone Pine) without fulfilling the usual norms like the first female FIDE GM, Nona Gaprindashvili (no age record here) or a shortcut based on qualifying for the world championship cycle like Fischer (in that instance, winning the US title produced an instant IM because it was also a FIDE zonal, then qualifying out of the Portoroz interzonal produced an instant GM, although Fischer would probably have smashed the existing record, Spassky at 18, soon after even if the usual norms were applied). These titles are an artifact of an era that produced a notion like the "Vera Menchik chess club" (composed of male masters who lost a game to Vera Menchik) when the idea that a woman could take down a male master was considered freakish.
Blatherskite, obviously USING caps randomly proves that women are worse than men. If you want to argue, cite sources. Please, take your sexism elsewhere.
Just because women have tended not to be the ones that mainly dominate in chess (and most sports), that doesn't mean they can't. I too hate this world that's been dominated by men, and by saying so I'm sort of dissing myself. 'Tis a small price to pay to speak the truth.
For this syrvey to have meaningful conclusion, it should be for women only. If 90% girls think it is encouraging while 90% men think it is demeaning, the former view is meaningful.
It's simply stupid. It's like there are two different standards for chess, men have to be this good to earn a title, and women have to be this good to earn it.
If one can't keep up with the other's standard, it doesn't mean we need to lower the standard.
If women are equal to men, then let them earn regular titles, and if they aren't, then they don't deserve their titles. (I'm not saying I agree with either opinion)
edit: A correction to previous comments: women can earn regular titles! It's the men that can't earn women's titles.
(unfortunately, today it's becoming more and more common all over the world in all areas of life, for example: if the students fail an exam, we increase their score.)
This debate just goes on and on and on. Everyone makes their point, and nothing is achieved. We've all heard all the arguments many many times, it's like discussing the death penalty. Nobody knows what affect it would have to abolish women's titles, so FIDE should get rid of them on a trial basis. If it works, keep it that way. If it doesn't, go back to how it was.
we want females!!!
(it's a a joke!)
I think it's good to have women’s title too in addition to have a men’s and all inclusive, men and women, and a kids too. It's not a manner of demeaning women in any way. It's like saying I'm the king of the hill. Women are great player too and in no way inferior to men in the game. The key to any player playing chess is their in knowledge of the game. I think it's great in addition that kids that have taken the time to learn can kick butt too. If you can play, you can cast your gauntlet too. Anyone who would look at it any different to say otherwise is not wise at all.
there should be one set of titles for everyone.separate but not equal is the norm here unless the two world champions met in a final.then all the questions will be answered.
What should be considered "demeaning" are the glamor photo-shoots of them. You don't see photos of the men posing all dolled up after tournaments. Maybe the women stay separate because everybody likes to see a girl fight? [All in good humor folks. Please don't blow me up on here.]
F.I.D.E. doesn't care of the silly poll or the thoughts of one in here.
I think the idea of different titles for women without merit but for none of the reasons mentioned above . in fact I found many of the choice offerd in the survey demeaning in the way the slant the survey. As more and more studies show that women are incredibly different then men in many ways including the way their minds work for example their ability to multitasking which is far superior to men. The fact that as yet men have been historically better then the women who have chosen to play chess maybe more because the game is too slow for them then any other reason. But the fact that there minds are so very different in how they operate means that it is interesting fair and valid to see how both sexes compare in what is a very regulated and equal rating game playing environment.
Chess is COMPLTELY mental in nature. To seperate women and men in chess is to say that men and women cannot compete on the same mental level! There should be no distinction. Men and women should compete against each other in all chess comptetition. I have thought that for years and still do. I only hope more people speak out against this silly and archaic distinction.
It's not demeaning to women to be a woman. It like any other sport men play against men women play against women. It should be this way in matches anyway. I used play basketball with my girlfriend I win some she win some. If she were in a league though she would only play against women. Makes perfect sense to me.
1) anyways is not a word.
2) It's not really very confusing is it. It's just silly and pointless, but there's no option for this!
I think, if lady will wish, i must agree and do satisfy. If she does fell being equel or better, i mustI not avoid a match. So gates all are open, just go, ant compete. There is no problem at all. I was playing with my older sister since 6-7 y old. To 16- she competed me most, later on I have taken the wins totaly. After 18 she was
getting tired in 15 moves, as "wuman do". So allso I didn't become a master.
To be a great player- u do not need a gender, u need a tallent and work, love and sacriface for the game. Emancipatet woman do Presidents, Prime ministers...Generals, Champions!
Sorry for my english
having seperate titles is insulting to women, and a WGM is barely an IM
Lets get on with another topic.
This survey suggests that women are not as smart.That is BS.We play anonymous anyway for the most part.There are many young females learning chess in school now.In Montreal,Canada it is used for learning Math skills at an early age.In New York City Females are introduced to it also and compete on school teams against males. This is not a contact sport so lets not be ignorant males.I can not believe that I am even waisting my time writing this just to make an unnecessary point.What are the women saying?
I'm a girl, obviously.
I neither need nor want a female title for anything. It's chess, not weight-lifting. I assure you I'm the intellectual equal of any boy here. I'm not a chess junkie, but I'm good, especially considering how little I play.
It has nothing to do with gender. It has everything to do with intelligence and attitude. I can handle myself. Even if one of you super-nerds manages to be better than me at chess, I'm still probably smarter than you.
Implying that I'm not usually gets someone cut, or at least beat to high, holy Hell.
Go ahead and make a woman's title, then I'll tell you what to do with it next.
Don't insult me. Beat me if you can, but don't insult me.
A woman's title for chess... That's almost as ridiculous as it is offensive.
PS: "Anyways" is not a word, geniuses.
I think they should have both divisions. And they should have the world title open to any gender. I'm sure most of you know that the 46th ranked player in the world is a female. Given the ratio between number of men and number of women, that says alot. Keep the womens division. It helps and is the reason there are more women in the sport. Some of you guys with ego problems, get over it. I've seen Judith Polgar beat some mature guy on youtube and he got pissed. Women can do much more then cook and have kids. Give them the chance, you'd be suprised. I've seen women throw men out of bars and put boot to butt. There's no reason they can't compete in the chess arena with men. If you ever get beat by a woman, don't feel bad. Just go back and train harder like they did.
its as fair as the negro baseball league. im sure back then some scientist were saying "them negros is just not physically capable to compete with us the white men. us white men have special muscles that those inferior negroes are born with out."
Women can think just as well as men. I mean, I see the reason for seperation in physical activities because men are typically stronger and better built. However, women's minds work just the same. No seperation is at all called for.
i like chickens.......:/
i did the last one but i hope that changes soon!
A couple of answers would have been good for this survey
poop
Join Chess.com for free to add your comment! Already a member? Then login now to comment.