Why is there a Women's World Championship?

No argument there.  The price of separatism.

That's an interesting inquiry.  It might be that today women are not less likely, but more likely to play in open events rather than less so.  A century ago hardly any women played in "men's" events, though there were exceptions to that rule. Adele Rivero, who some people think was the first official US Women's Champ, in the 1930s-60s played in open events as well as women-only events, Menchik and Graff did so too on a higher level.  Later, Nona Gaprindashvili, Maia Chiburdanidze,  Diane Savereide, Rachel Crotto all played in open events. But many women like Elisavita Bykova, Mona May Karff and Lisa Lane stuck mostly to women-only events.  I think today, although it's still not common because of the low number of women who do play, you are more likely to see women in open tournaments. The average strength of women on the whole seems far, far greater than say 50 years ago when Lisa Lane was US women's champion and played at about the expert level.

I never saw your question... and now that I do, I can't see the logic in it since it isolates an example for one thing and tries to apply it to something else.  Women traditionally both bear and raise children. That doesn't mean women must have children, or that men can't raise them, but generally if a couple wants children, women will bear them and raise them, at least to a certain point. Men can certainly raise them, but if that man is a professional chess player, his career will probably, though not necessarily, suffer a serious set-back.  For women as a group, I think child-raising is a serious contemplation, while for a man it would simply be an anomaly (nice word).  If a man bears and raises a child, I can't see why anyone might object to him entering a women-only event and chance winning some paltry prize.

Ok, thanks for the info batgirl.

That seems true.  I've seen women in about every tournament I've been to.  The two grown women I've played were 1900s and they beat me.  I suppose at the time of Lisa Lane they would have been relatively very strong, but now they're just in normal tourneys with people like me :p

It is cleaner, but not by much.  The world is just too chaotic.  Who's to say those four guys you saved aren't going to kill thousands in the future.  Or, maybe, the one guy you killed would have, in the future, had a chance to pull a switch to save the lives of thousands?

Is there any way to ensure all five die?  Maybe that's cleanest.

Oh, yeah.  That is assured.  All five will die, if they live long enough.

Therefore, we must keep them from living very long.

So perhaps the guy is made to be 600 pounds to ensure that he will be completely useless if spared ;)  On the other hand, he wouldn't make a very good criminal. jk of course; don't want to be weight-ist.

It's because us women would like to be seen as a part of society. We don't care if we are not so smart or strong like men, we just want to be noticed. That's all.

Thanks, George. It's always nice to hear a woman's input on the subject.

Is it age discrimination if I, an adult,  can't participate in junior events?

Is it age discrimination if you score the same as a child in an open event yet he/she gets a prize and you don't?

A typical argument in such threads... right now, I'm going to make an assumption for some fun:

What if I said the prevailing reason for different age groups is the idea that one age group is more capable than another? Do people believe that children are more or less at a cognitive disadvantage? Of course we do, because their brains are not as well developed. And when you make senior groups, you are compensating for dementia. I think we are implying that different age groups have different limits.

But are we holding women to that same assumption? Are we implying that they are at a biological disadvantage, and therefore need an easier life? Age is pretty hard to argue against; but obviously when we talk about gender it's controversial. Or, are women "just different?" Should we just have a tournament for people who wear glasses, just because they are different? I get the feeling that there is a significant reason behind the separation, and it's a bit more subtle than the age division.

In my personal opinion, the reasons have more to do with gender roles; women may be, on average, at a social disadvantage; so maybe that's the reason behind the tournaments. My problem is that we apply this supposed tendency to every single woman, by giving every single woman an extra opportunity. Do you really think the Polgar sisters had any conflict with playing the game, when their father was using them to prove an entire thesis? Of course not! They had an absolutely beautiful environment for learning! I don't think they were at any disadvantage whatsoever!

In fact, the women that do make it to high levels in chess are probably the exceptional people that did, in fact, have a good environment for learning the game. And if that's the case, they are nothing more special than the guys at the same level, and it would be really sad if they took all of the attention.

For those that don't give women a good environment for them to learn the game if they want, those families are the ones at fault. Don't take it out on the guys by telling them they have to work just as much for the same recognition!

Except perhaps for the attitude they got when they beat men at the chess club.  Probably any dominant junior would get some, but I remember a quip about how how sister said she'd never beaten a man who wasn't sick (i.e. they always had an excuse).

Anyway, just because their father pushed chess on them doesn't mean they didn't experience any stereotyping out in the world whenever they played.

Yes on both counts, but I don't see it as necessarily wrong.

I apologize, but, assuming there was some discrimination by society (iffy), if you have your parent backing you up like that, are a couple of random comments really going to stop your passion?

To be honest, I think I am in a much worse position than the Polgar sisters chess-wise. Sure, I'm a boy, and there is no stereotype that males can't play chess, but that doesn't make a chess-playing guy popular either.

The problem is that I have nowhere near the same amount of emotional support from my parents as the Polgar sisters must have had. They have no problem with me playing chess, but they don't want me to be a professional chess player, and I do. I have an uphill battle with myself and my parents in the long-shot that I actually accomplish my goal.

But look at all the prize money wasted on lower talented kids when I should be getting my share to support my semi-starving cat!

Actually, I don't think women are at any disavatage, socially or intellectually, though they do have issues to deal with that differ from those men must deal with and, if the more talented players participated in more open events, they would find themselves improving at a faster rate.  But my feeling is, that, other than diverting a small portion of money from the general fund, women-only events do nothing to harm men and, in fact, encourage women who may not participate otherwise for whatever reasons.  I would go so far as to suggest that NO money should be diverted and that the organizers of women-only events find all their own sponsors and funding.

Well, I'm certainly jealous of the fact that if I were a girl I would probably be in an issue of chess life by now, getting WFM norms maybe. Seeing one group being put at an unfair (in my opinion) advantage is about as bad as being put at a disadvantage; in fact, perhaps the two things are equivalent?