Games like Chess should not have male and female division

There are sports like Football where men have clear advantage over female counterpart with better physical strength. But any sport which does not have clear advantage should not have separation of male and female classes.

Most of the indoor games like chess, pool should have only one tournament where the best person wins.

What is the history behind every sport having a Women's Championship? Is there a science which shows that men have more intellectual capability to give them edge in chess or any other game which is not physical? What about Archery or shooting?

A common argument is that as there aren't many women who can compete in open tourneys, we have separate tournaments to encourage them. Does't this suggest that just like in Tennis or other sport, men have advantage and so we have special tournaments for women. Isn't this same as other physical sports? You can't have it both ways. Either men have advantage and having separate tournament is justifiable. Or they don't then we shouldn't have it separate as many other communities are underrepresented. Why shouldn't we have only white or only black or only brown tournaments as one of them underrepresented?

Haven't all the arguments been said again and again? Do you think anything new will be said this time?

One reason is that women are under represented because of social norms so the aim of the separation is to help women's chess. Also their aren't men and women tournament. Their are open and women tournaments. Women can participate in ''men's'' tournaments (that are actually open to all)

Sex segregation makes a lot of sense for many sports/games where men might have an advantage due to physiological differences. But chess is purely mental. There is no need for strength, speed, endurance or any other physiological parameter that would give men an advantage.

In fact, some women do compete successfully in top flight tournaments with men, something that would be impossible in physical sports.

If anything, it seems that "women only" chess events are sexist, because the implication is that women are not as smart as men.

You are right, currently there are essentially only "open for everyone" events and women only events.

I feel that any marketing aspect is overshadowed by the pernicious implication of women being mentaly handicapped as compared to men.

Women would be better served if they were treated exactly the same as men with respect to playing chess.

I like a mixed, maybe temporary solution there was once on National Spanish championships. Two separate competitions, absolute and women, but all players in the same pool.

Chess has very little to do with intelligence

If he were a new account, that's ok, but he's been around a long time. Unfortunately the OP seems to be trolling as he makes the common mistake of suggesting there is a separation of the sexes in chess.

This, of course, is not true. Women can compete for all the titles men can, and there are no tournaments that bar women from playing.

There's no rage in his post. He presents a reasonable dichotomy:

Either the female-only titles and tournaments are fair or they're not fair.

I think most people will agree women are not dumb, therefore the titles and money are obviously unfair, however this is seen as a small price to pay for the sake of drawing in more of the female population, especially since this sort of injustice usually goes in the other direction. No, that doesn't make it right, but I'm explaining why many find it tolerable.

This response makes me think of a question.  Who is generally more passionate about this topic - men or women?  If the majority of competitive women chess players are content with the current arrangement, why should I be concerned?  I do find it interesting that in the US, where women fight to be on a level playing field with men in most areas, that there would not be more of a push for women to compete against men at the top levels of chess.  I don't follow chess news carefully, so I may be way off base.  It is always an interesting topic to read about, though, and definitely elicits lots of opinions

Because it's inherently unjust towards males, therefore it makes sense for males to be more passionate about discussing this aspect of it.

For example how many 2300 male players can you name? I'm talking about players you've never met in person or played. Players you know because of their fame.

>99% of people would answer zero.

But relatively low skill females get on the covers of magazines, get books published, get invited to do commentary at top tournaments, give lessons, etc.

Jennifer Shahade is famous in chess circles. She wrote two books (Chess Bitch and Play Like a Girl), she regularly does commentary alongside a former strong GM (Seirawan) and jobs doing instructional videos at the Saint Louis Chess Club, and she's barely 2300.

Now, do I personally dislike J.Shahade? No.

Do I think she's awful at chess? No, I even recall watching an instructional video she did at the Saint Louis Chess Club.

My point is if she were a he, we'd never know this person existed.

Creating a division for females only exacerbates the gender problem we have in chess. It's all relative....as it's a male-dommed (hi %-wise) game (not SPORT !) so expect it. If it was a sport ?....I could understand the division.

AND rulemaking dumbos WANNA create the chasm. It helps them maintain their egocentric ideals of women. The split helps in their search for their all-important self-esteem (lack thereof).

We should probably point out that the "W" versions of the standard titles are all exactly 200 points easier.

So GM is 2300 when there's a W in front
IM is 2200 with a W
CM is 2000 with a W

So this does seem to imply women are not as able.

If they want to draw in women, fine, have exclusive tournaments and prize money... but lesser titles? Seems like a dick move.

....I don't believe in lesser-rated titles either - per my quote #17.

Do women have the power to change this?  This may sound really simplistic, but if women want to see a change in this odd gender division in chess, could they not simply choose to compete against men?   I've never really understood this.  

I see both sides of this. I think women do well to compete in regular tournaments with men and women.

On the other women, some women apparently feel intimidated playing fat old men. For them, women's events may bring them into the game. Hopefully, they eventually learn that fat old men are not as intimidating as they thought. In fact, many of us are nice, respectful, and would be happy to play them.

Personally, if my daughter showed interest in the game, I would recommend she play regular tournaments. But I would understand if she played women's tournaments instead.