Why is this even a topic of discussion? Why are men who couldn't achieve a rating that would qualify for a WGM so worried about who gets awarded what title and why? Do they bear a grudge against women?
female grandmasters
Sort:
electricpawn wrote:
Why is this even a topic of discussion? Why are men who couldn't achieve a rating that would qualify for a WGM so worried about who gets awarded what title and why? Do they bear a grudge against women?
No, it's the other way around, some people (and I can see what they mean, but I don't agree at the moment) consider WGM and WIM titles to be demeaning towards women.
electricpawn wrote:
Why is this even a topic of discussion? Why are men who couldn't achieve a rating that would qualify for a WGM so worried about who gets awarded what title and why? Do they bear a grudge against women?
Its because some people believe everyone should meet the same standards to qualify for titles, isnt that just AWFUL !? I think blue eyed people should only have to be 2350 to get the GM title while everyone who isnt blue eyed should have to be 2650 . 
kramakintews wrote:
It's like saying that anyone from the south can only get a Grand Dragon title
There are more grand dragons outside the south than in it .... 
Stereotypes need updating from time to time.
They do update but it's like Windows updates. If it doesn't get worse it sure doesn't get any better.
Reb wrote:
electricpawn wrote:
Why is this even a topic of discussion? Why are men who couldn't achieve a rating that would qualify for a WGM so worried about who gets awarded what title and why? Do they bear a grudge against women?
Its because some people believe everyone should meet the same standards to qualify for titles, isnt that just AWFUL !? I think blue eyed people should only have to be 2350 to get the GM title while everyone who isnt blue eyed should have to be 2650 .
You have the talent to be validly concerned about such things. From most of the rest of us it feels to me like pygmys pulling at their skirts. If you're below expert level, learn some tactics and study your endagmes and quit worrying about the titles given to exceptional players.
I'll give you Knight odds.
It's an offer you can't refuse.
I want a new title being created called "CGM". It stands for casual grand master. It will be awarded to the average players rating between 1400-1900 . I also want to see casual players world championship.
There also needs to be special titles, like if one studies chess for twenty years and achieves nothing, he should get a title for his efforts. I propose "DGM" title for that. Dedicated Grand Master it is.
They have a name for the winners in the world. I want a name when I lose. They call Alabama the Crimson Tide. Call me Deacon Blues. (Steely Dan)
Hermes3 wrote:
I want a new title being created called "CGM". It stands for casual grand master. It will be awarded to the average players rating between 1400-1900 . I also want to see casual players world championship.
There also needs to be special titles, like if one studies chess for twenty years and achieves nothing, he should get a title for his efforts. I propose "DGM" title for that. Dedicated Grand Master it is.
So ... you've been following my career. How'd you like the way I hung my rook at the Lee County Fair?
Hermes3 wrote:
I want a new title being created called "CGM". It stands for casual grand master. It will be awarded to the average players rating between 1400-1900 . I also want to see casual players world championship.
There also needs to be special titles, like if one studies chess for twenty years and achieves nothing, he should get a title for his efforts. I propose "DGM" title for that. Dedicated Grand Master it is.
I thought the former already had a title, grandpatzer (GP).
I hope to become a candidate "DGM" one day (CDGM).
FIDE means problem. they create problem instead of solutions
Hermes3 wrote:
I want a new title being created called "CGM". It stands for casual grand master. It will be awarded to the average players rating between 1400-1900 . I also want to see casual players world championship.
There also needs to be special titles, like if one studies chess for twenty years and achieves nothing, he should get a title for his efforts. I propose "DGM" title for that. Dedicated Grand Master it is.
There is a World Amateur Championship (for players U2000), although it doesn't get much coverage for obvious reasons.
good luck to all female players.
electricpawn wrote:
Reb wrote:
electricpawn wrote:
Why is this even a topic of discussion? Why are men who couldn't achieve a rating that would qualify for a WGM so worried about who gets awarded what title and why? Do they bear a grudge against women?
Its because some people believe everyone should meet the same standards to qualify for titles, isnt that just AWFUL !? I think blue eyed people should only have to be 2350 to get the GM title while everyone who isnt blue eyed should have to be 2650 .
You have the talent to be validly concerned about such things. From most of the rest of us it feels to me like pygmys pulling at their skirts. If you're below expert level, learn some tactics and study your endagmes and quit worrying about the titles given to exceptional players.
So, by the same logic, only composers can legitimately enjoy listening to music, right?
electricpawn wrote:
Why is this even a topic of discussion? Why are men who couldn't achieve a rating that would qualify for a WGM so worried about who gets awarded what title and why? Do they bear a grudge against women?
I am just replying to this thread which is discussing this title issue. I am rather new and no where near any type of GM title. I dont buy all the personal/media/social pressure bs; if women love to play chess then why should they care what people think about them playing. I just feel they are equallly capable as men and dont see why there should be seperate standards. It is actaully a compliment in womens favor instead of a knock in any capacity.....
Stumbled across this forum today, but a neverending argument on chess sites so never too late to add viewpoints. :p
I've read some arguments for why women chess players are worse than men chess players which states that men and women's brains are different. You can read the arguments here:
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5544
"Human relationships. Women tend to communicate more effectively than men, focusing on how to create a solution that works for the group, talking through issues, and utilizes non-verbal cues such as tone, emotion, and empathy whereas men tend to be more task-oriented, less talkative, and more isolated. Left brain vs. both hemispheres. Men tend to process better in the left hemisphere of the brain while women tend to process equally well between the two hemispheres. Mathematical abilities. An area of the brain called the inferior-parietal lobule (IPL) is typically significantly larger in men, especially on the left side, than in women. Reaction to stress. Men tend to have a "fight or flight" response to stress situations while women seem to approach these situations with a "tend and befriend" strategy. Language. Two sections of the brain responsible for language were found to be larger in women than in men, indicating one reason that women typically excel in language-based subjects and in language-associated thinking. Emotions. Women typically have a larger deep limbic system than men, which allows them to be more in touch with their feelings and better able to express them, which promotes bonding with others. Brain size. Typically, men’s brains are 11-12% bigger than women’s brains. Pain. Men and women perceive pain differently. Spatial ability. Men typically have stronger spatial abilities, or being able to mentally represent a shape and its dynamics, whereas women typically struggle in this area. Susceptibility to disorders. Because of the way men and women use the two hemispheres of the brain differently, there are some disorders that men and women are susceptible to in different ways."
In theory then all men should beat all women in chess ;)
And we all know this doesn't happen.
I think it comes down to the amount of time one dedicates to study and to playing, passion for the game, and having a high I.Q. is definitely a bonus, not down to the gender. If you look at the statistics of how many male chess players there are vs. female players you will find an enormous difference, so the odds of males beating women at the very top level is much higher than vice versa.
see next post.
Why Men Rank Higher than Women at Chess (It's Not Biological)
(PhysOrg.com) -- In the recorded history of chess, world champions have always been male, not female. Further, there is currently only one woman in the top 100 chess players in the world. Because chess is often considered to be the ultimate intellectual activity, male dominance at chess is often cited as an example of innate male intellectual superiority. But rather than resort to biological or cultural explanations, a recent study proposes a different explanation.
A team of researchers from the UK has shown that the under-representation of women at the top end in chess is almost exactly what would be expected, given the much greater number of men that participate in the game at all. Researchers Merim Bilalic, et al., have published their research on this statistical sampling explanation in a recent issue of the Proceedings of the Royal Society B.
The authors analyzed the population of about 120,000 German players as recorded by the German chess federation in April 2007. Based on more than 3,000 tournaments per year, the German chess federation measures the skill level of all competitive and most hobby players in the country (the rating correlates highly with the widely known Elo rating). The sample population included 113,386 men and 7,013 women (a ratio of 16:1).
First, the researchers estimated the expected performance of the top 100 male and top 100 female players. Then, they compared the expected differences in points between these high-ranking male and female players with the actual point differences. Theoretically, the size difference between the male and female groups should correspond to the point differences between the top performers in the two groups.
The results showed that the top three women had more points than expected, the next 70 or so pairs showed a small advantage for the men, and the last 20 pairs showed a small advantage for the women. Overall, men performed slightly better than expected, with an average advantage of 353 points, whereas the expected advantage was 341 points. Nevertheless, about 96% of the actual difference between genders could be explained by the statistical fact that the extreme values from a large sample are likely to be larger than those from a small one.
In the study, the scientists also discussed the question of why so few women participate in chess at all. While it's possible that there exists a self-selection process based on innate biological differences that leads women to drop out of chess early on, this argument rests on a controversial assumption, the researchers say. That is, it requires that there is an innate difference between genders in the intellectual abilities associated with chess - an assumption that has little empirical evidence to support it.
Whether or not statistical sampling covers all the bases of explaining male superiority in chess, the researchers hope that the explanation will be considered by both experts and laypeople. In previous discussions of gender difference, there is often no mention of participation rates, although a wide range of other reasons receive attention (e.g. different interests and gatekeeper effects, etc.).
In addition, the researchers question whether a statistical sampling explanation might explain the predominance of men at the top of science and engineering fields - although performance in these activities is much more difficult to measure than in objectively ranked chess populations.
More information: Bilalic, Merim; Smallbone, Kieran; McLeod, Peter; and Gobet, Fernand. "Why are (the best) women so good at chess? Participation rates and gender differences in intellectual domains." Proceedings of the Royal Society B. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2008.1576.
Link to this article:
There shouldnt be anything seperate in mens/womens chess besides which restrooms they use between matches. There is no physical advantage to be had in chess.....
The "WGM" title shouldnt even exist IMHO, "no offesnse to women"; I believe they are smart enough to compete w/ and be held to the same standard as the men.....
I have mixed feelings about that issue, but ultimately, I think the system is fine as it is, for now. Women can compete in open events, and do, very successfully in some cases. They also get some encouragement by the special titles and gender-segregated tournaments, because they need it (there are social pressures for women not to play chess, and very little encouragement), but it is clear they are by no means equivalent to the open titles (well, I thought so, but some posters here seem to have gotten the wrong idea).
So women get the opportunity to play open chess tournaments, and also special women ones. If men needed special mens tournaments, we'd (despite my profile picture, I am a man :P) organise some, but there is obviously no need for it, there's no social pressure discouraging us men from playing chess).
But the ideal would indeed be men and women playing on equal terms, and hopefully the encouragement offered by the segregated tournaments and titles will help this level of equality be achieved in the future.