FM vs WGM

I think what you mean is, it's obvious that a bunch of men in this forum find titles degrading to women. What I suggested is that we listen to what females players have to say on the subject and let them make up their own minds, rather than dictating to them what is and isn't acceptable. To my way of thinking that sort of behavior is quite condescending and a lot more harmful/disrespectful than a few honorary titles meant to encourage female participation. So sorry, but not sorry.

Women is very stupid for chess. 

He sure gets how to talk down to people and attack their character when he doesn't agree with them.

I see why you approve.

All titles are "honorary" by definition, that's what a title is. Doesn't matter if it's WGM, IM, or whatever. The only one claiming that some are "real" and others are not is you. Women can and do achieve all chess titles and I certainly never said otherwise, so kindly stop trying to shove nonsense in my mouth.

Anyways your attempts to ascribe b.s. to me notwithstanding that's a good link that I've read before, and exactly what I was calling for in the first place - more perspective from female players. Obviously there are pros and cons to both sides of the issue and all I've been trying to point out is that most of the people taking stances in this thread have no experience with either, and should stop drowning out the voices of those who do. Not sure why this position is offending so many people.

In any case I'm going to take my own advice and stop posting in this thread now; here's hoping I don't have to deal with a week of notifications from people pretending I have some evil hidden agenda

I also don't like this idea that something can only be wrong if someone complains about it first... It's a really bad defense to take...

Why are you talking about men specifically here ?

Both IM and GM are not male player titles, they're open to everyone who plays well enough. No gender restriction on them; these titles already provide true gender equality by offering an equal opportunity to be earned.

Contrary to what you seem to think (at least that's how it seems to me, maybe I misunderstood you ?) these titles are not harder to attain for women than they are for men. They need to win against the same strength opponents and achieve the very same norms for them.

Not the slightest bit of female disadvantage exists there. Just sit down at the board and win. Same as for men.

The only reason we see lesser female GMs is because fewer women seem as fascinated with chess as men do.

Judit Polgar has proven conclusively it is no disadvantage in chess to have a female brain - she peaked at nr. 8 in the world and has proven she could beat anyone.

In fact, if she had not decided to focus on family/children for a while (a decision I highly respect, because imho ones family is even more important than success in ones job) she might have gotten even higher.

Hou Yifan is a very strong player despite not having devoted fulltime to chess while she got her education and studied at university.

There is nothing, I repeat, nothing at all wrong with female chess playing abilty so why on earth do women want their own prize pools, tournaments and titles when men don't have those ?

In chess, women should have to work just as hard for their success as men have to.

If they want respect in the chesss community that's perfectly fine - but come and earn it the same as everyone else.

No double standards.

female cliffdivers are equal to men.. coincidence ??

Off the top of my head, how about this approach:

1.  What's the Worst Outcome if Women's Titles are Abolished (presumably with the support of many women players)?  What's your best guess estimated probability that this worst outcome will occur?

2.  What's the Worst Outcome if Women's Titles are NOT Abolished (presumably with the support of many women players)?  What's your best guess estimated probability that this worst outcome will occur?

Read, examine, and compare the arguments for 1 and 2 based on compelling logic and reason. 

For myself, I don't have any skin in the game, and don't really care one way or the other.    If anything, I just like principled reasoning, but also knowing that principled reasoning and logic oftentimes does not win out.  After all, I'm a married man who prizes marital peace, lol.

Not at all denying that there are low rated players with titles. Here in Taiwan there are 1400 players with W* titles, and 1600 guys with titles. Not necessarily children. Still, those titles were usually obtained by playing for the national team and scoring maybe 75% in a Chess Olympiad. One can see it as comparing players to differnet pools, the same way we have children, women and senior events. The idea was to compare players to the others in the same country.

Note, I am not defending the old FIDE policies, but just wanted to give you some perspective.

Also something you wrote: "There are kids at the local club (boys and girls) who have ratings far above that!".

We are talking about contries where there are NO clubs. No tournaments. Nobody knows how to play. Why would anyone pick up a game that nobody else plays? Why would the goverment pay to FIDE and send players abroad? The idea was to make the titles a carrot for that.

I think using some kind of national master title would have been more appropriate though, to better signal what pool the title came from.

I think that is the very mistake both FIDE and national chess organizations around the globe make. By thinking there should be rewards to "pick up a game that nobody else plays" they are having it all backwards. Players found the game itself enticing, and started organizing themselves and creating structures and titles after that to reward the best of them.

But noone really started to try chess because they have titles as a carrot. Players start chess because they heard about it (usually from family/friends) try it out and like it.

Chess didn't survive through the centuries because there were titles motivating players or anything like that. It survived, and thrived, because as a board game, it has proven itself to be interesting, even exiting to many of those who tried it.

They felt they spent their free time in a rewarding, exiting and worthwhile way, and they were having fun.

If not for that, chess would have faded back into obscurity centuries ago and we would not even have heard much about it in modern times.

Why would anyone want to start playing a game that he/she doesn't find interesting or even exiting ?

If there was a game around that looked boring to me, would I think "Oh but they have fancy titles for their better players, and because of that I'll try it ?"  Seriously ? No, I would not, in case you're wondering.

And the same goes for women's chess: there are just fewer women interested in the game, and no amount of artificial incentives will lure them in if they don't think the game itself is interesting.

And honestly, that's perfectly fine. They should play the games they're interested in, life is too short to waste on games one does not find appealing.

Maybe there are more women than men playing bridge (I honestly don't know, just guessing).

If men dont play that game as much that's perfectly fine too, no need to create male titles there just so bridge can have more male players. Let hobbyists play what they like, there is no gender quota to fill.

Chess as a game does not need or want more players, chess organizations do. Chess is just there, it's available to almost everyone and it's nearly free, needing only a board and pieces or the opportunity to go online.

Chess organizations make it sound like there is a need for more players (and more women) in chess because they profit from it financially, not because the game itself needs it. Chess is fascinating to millions of players around the globe, and is perfectly healthy and fine.

Paul Morphy didn't need titles to motivate him to become a player, and neither should anyone else. The whole idea of womens titles being for promotion, and needed for it, is a sham. They won't attract a single woman into the game who would otherwise have shunned it.

@Graf_Nachthafen I agree. The "W" suggests that men and women have different potential in chess. Perhaps if titles were uniform then ratings would equalize as well.

You live on a different planet. I know, I grew up on your planet, but then I ended up on Ferenginar.

How come you started playing chess and not say Chinese chess (Xiang Xi)? Or Go? Likely because nobody around you played those games, and did not teach you how to play. That is also why most people dont start playing chess in places like here. For those who do start playing chess here, money or potential accomplishments are motivators to do so.

- Kids start playing chess not because they love it but because their parents force them to.

- Parents choose chess because there are less players and competition, and their kids can easier get accomplishments. Why? Maybe the kids might get into a better college that way. Or get a stipend. In any case, make more money somehow.

- Fun is often not a part of the equation. Kids already go to school from early morning to late in the evening (ordinary school + cram schools). Activities outside that is for competing, and winning.

- Chess associations are not always run by chess players or for the benefit of chess/chess players. Instead people in power can be involved in chess for their own (selfish) reasons.

And for once I give it to FIDE, they at least understood part of the above, and tried to use it to increase the popularity of chess. And why would FIDE bother with that...  well, thats how the world works.

Thank you to everybody how participated in this discussion.

I guess the consensus is that most would prefer to hold the WGM title over the FM title. 

wow! you did it.  you actually stated a truly consensus view. ..... well.... Not counting the VERY long-winded, pointless and mostly irrelevant, one sided argument where a bunch of guys say that "W" titles suck.

anyways wonder never cease. GJ.

I forementioned cliffdivers are equal,, men and women..

    And absolutely nobody gave me a logical answer on how men and women see the board any differintly.. 

   How can a woman see the board any different?? ,,when apples are red and oranges are orange........ The optic nerve responds the same way with any human with 20 20 vision..  FACT.

 Ill have to ask the WCM im playing on the correspondence if she plays titled tuesdays.