Why is there a Women's World Championship?

I hope a top reason for a Womans Chess Championship is to involve more women in the game.

I think chess is a game that is good for people. The game is good for brain health. I like to see as many options available that encourage people to play chess. That is what I like about chess.com. It has a mode of play to suit every  personality and confort level.

Reb was defending you.

Agreed -- I said at the beginning of this thread that the primary value of women only tournaments is the exposure it gives to exceptional female players, and hopefully the desire it ignites in young prospective female players to pursue the game in a more serious manner.  Without this, the proportion will likely forever remain out of balance and the misperceptions I've seen throughout this thread will continue to perpetuate.

I partially agree with batgirl and partially disagree.

The part I disagree about is the "misperception of fairness". Unlike many of the posters, I don't see any fundamental reason why women should play stronger or weaker than men. I have heard many of the arguments and I just don't agree with them. I agree with the sentiment "that which encourages participation is good for women's chess" but struggle internally with the apparent contradiction that officially sanctioned women-only tournaments/titles gives the appearance of an official position that women don't play as well.

For those linguists out there, is this irony? In order to achieve a certain aim, one takes an action which has the appearance of being opposite? If not, what is it?

Yeah, they have to admit that women are worse or would lose to the best men, it's a fact though and they just want more women to play if they have a better chance to win. If there wasn't a women's world championship, women would get discouraged and there would be much less willing to play, and we want more women to play since so few of them do.

Also, if there are more women, it will probably make women better and willing to improve. They may eventually catch up to the men. But if they were equal skill level, there would be no point of a women's world championship. It's easier to say that with sports, since men are naturally more physically strong. But with chess you would think it's equal. Women have equal capabilities, so I think it has to do with how much time they put into it compared to men.

It really feels just like a numbers game. If 10 times the women played compared with today, there would be that many more world class players.

I can't believe how obtuse most of these posts are.

Here are 8 high-ranked brother and sister pairs. In 3 cases, the females are higher ranked than the males, and in 5, the males rank higher than the females. Statistically, this doesn't tell us much, but it doesn't strongly suggest that one sex is inherently better at chess than the other:

Cramling, Pia     SISTER 2528
Cramling, Dan     BROTHER 2409

Hunt, Harriet V     SISTER 2461
Hunt, Adam C     BROTHER 2433

Houska, Jovanka     SISTER 2402
Houska, Miroslav BROTHER 2284

Shahade, Jennifer     SISTER        2322
Shahade, Gregory     BROTHER    2446

Grosar, Kiti     SISTER 2219
Grosar, Aljosa     BROTHER 2416

Kunte, Mrunalini SISTER 2124
Kunte, Abhijit     BROTHER 2513

Maksimovic, Suzana     SISTER     2299
Maksimovic, Branimir     BROTHER    2418

Mamedjarova, Turkan     SISTER 2255
Mamedyarov, Shakhriyar     BROTHER 2725

Interesting post, thanks!

I'm not so sure a sample size of 8 suggests anything, strongly or otherwise.

Yes, I think I already said that in my post.

The metrics I would start tracking, for both boys and girls, would be:

• Interest at scholastic level
• Dropoff rate post-scholastic
• USCF member subscriptions, per type, per gender
• men/women ratios, per rating range

There's been a lot of study done on the drop in science and math among females in puberty. The current theory is that the social relationships developing at the time push girls out of those fields. My niece is going to a private school just for middle school for that very reason. I wouldn't be surprised if the same effect is happening in Chess.

Good point, why reinvent the wheel?

To claim billions of pounds for coming up with one of the most revolutionary devices in all of history?

It is pretty similar. It's only at the absolute top level where the differences are quite noticeable. And of course the world championship is the top level.

Average rating of top10 women - 2562,6

Average rating of top10 men - 2763,7

Average difference - 201,1

But the differences of gender is hardly noticeable on level below 2300.

If the question "Why is there a women's world (chess) championship?" is intended to mean the same as "Why must there be a women's world championship?", then the answer ought to be just that "there doesn't need to be one; some people just wanted one."  I don't see why this is criticized as if it's illegitimate.  Suppose top 100 players in the world had a mean rating of 2650 and that the top 100 players in the USA had a mean rating of 2450.  Would this make a US Chess Championship illegitimate?  The same goes for all kinds of distinctions -- by age, grade level, geography, federation, et cetera, even for racial and/or ethnic groups, as ridiculous as that may sound.  There's no absolute need to have these particular distinctions, but that's not the same thing as saying we cannot legitimately have them. 

The issue of whether or not it's wisest for women to play in women-only events, for purposes of their chess development (i.e. the argument that they will face weaker competition), is a separate question from the issue of whether women can legitimately have such events.  

I think this help for make women noticible, and not for a gender issue, maybe it is more related to the fact that women have been for a long time confined to the house and children. I think that with time they will make their way to the top and that day the two world championships will be unified in only one.