# Games like Chess should not have male and female division

If having a women's division gets more of them playing, I'm all for it.

Studies have made it clear that men's and women's brains tend to work a little differently and that women use more of their brains to study problems than men do. This may mean that men are better at focusing problems mathematically or geometrically and women are better at seeing the overall picture.

It may NOT mean those things, either. We don't know. Consequently, since the top women tend not to do as well as well as men, having a women's division is a good idea no matter the reason for the differences.

MickinMD wrote:

since the top women tend not to do as well as well as men, having a women's division is a good idea no matter the reason for the differences.

That doesn't make any sense.

There are plenty of males who aren't top players, and they don't need exclusive tournaments. If a female is 2200 there are TONS of 2000-2400 players she can meet at regular tournaments.

Also, acquiring rare members is trivially easy as long as you start with a large enough sample. To say the best women aren't as good as the best men is meaningless unless the same number participate to begin with.

The sooner you realise you cannot regulate and control everything, the better.

For the rest of us as well.

Preggo_Basashi wrote:
MickinMD wrote:

since the top women tend not to do as well as well as men, having a women's division is a good idea no matter the reason for the differences.

That doesn't make any sense.

There are plenty of males who aren't top players, and they don't need exclusive tournaments. If a female is 2200 there are TONS of 2000-2400 players she can meet at regular tournaments.

Also, acquiring rare members is trivially easy as long as you start with a large enough sample. To say the best women aren't as good as the best men is meaningless unless the same number participate to begin with.

I dont think anyone is talking about exclusive tournaments (as far as gender goes), but rather exclusive divisions within tournaments. Not just gender, but age, rating, etc. You are right, there are plenty of men who are not top players. But there are plenty of women who are not top players either.

Saying the best women are not as good as the best men has lots of meaning, because it's true. The sample size is the whole world, including all men chess players and all women chess players. I think everyone agrees most of the top spots are held by men. If you want the same number to participate so you can compare that way, probably wont happen. I doubt I will ever play in a tournament ever again, for me it defeats the whole purpose of chess.

Preggo_Basashi wrote:
MickinMD wrote:

since the top women tend not to do as well as well as men, having a women's division is a good idea no matter the reason for the differences.

That doesn't make any sense.

There are plenty of males who aren't top players, and they don't need exclusive tournaments. If a female is 2200 there are TONS of 2000-2400 players she can meet at regular tournaments.

Also, acquiring rare members is trivially easy as long as you start with a large enough sample. To say the best women aren't as good as the best men is meaningless unless the same number participate to begin with.

thinking is apparently not your strong point. hopefully getting preggo comes more naturally to you.

ilovesmetuna wrote:
Preggo_Basashi wrote:
MickinMD wrote:

since the top women tend not to do as well as well as men, having a women's division is a good idea no matter the reason for the differences.

That doesn't make any sense.

There are plenty of males who aren't top players, and they don't need exclusive tournaments. If a female is 2200 there are TONS of 2000-2400 players she can meet at regular tournaments.

Also, acquiring rare members is trivially easy as long as you start with a large enough sample. To say the best women aren't as good as the best men is meaningless unless the same number participate to begin with.

thinking is apparently not your strong point. hopefully getting preggo comes more naturally to you.

Dude, what are you bored or something? Hurling insults at others won't achieve anything.

ilovesmetuna wrote:
Preggo_Basashi wrote:
MickinMD wrote:

since the top women tend not to do as well as well as men, having a women's division is a good idea no matter the reason for the differences.

That doesn't make any sense.

There are plenty of males who aren't top players, and they don't need exclusive tournaments. If a female is 2200 there are TONS of 2000-2400 players she can meet at regular tournaments.

Also, acquiring rare members is trivially easy as long as you start with a large enough sample. To say the best women aren't as good as the best men is meaningless unless the same number participate to begin with.

thinking is apparently not your strong point. hopefully getting preggo comes more naturally to you.

I'll repeat it for you: what he said made no sense.

"Having a woman's division is a good idea because there are no 2700-2800 women"

This makes no sense because 99.9999 (not sure now many 9s I need heh) of chess players are not 2700-2800. In fact it's the opposite... those are the players who need their own division (and they basically have it via invitational super tournaments).

lfPatriotGames wrote:
Preggo_Basashi wrote:
MickinMD wrote:

since the top women tend not to do as well as well as men, having a women's division is a good idea no matter the reason for the differences.

That doesn't make any sense.

There are plenty of males who aren't top players, and they don't need exclusive tournaments. If a female is 2200 there are TONS of 2000-2400 players she can meet at regular tournaments.

Also, acquiring rare members is trivially easy as long as you start with a large enough sample. To say the best women aren't as good as the best men is meaningless unless the same number participate to begin with.

I dont think anyone is talking about exclusive tournaments (as far as gender goes), but rather exclusive divisions within tournaments. Not just gender, but age, rating, etc. You are right, there are plenty of men who are not top players. But there are plenty of women who are not top players either.

Saying the best women are not as good as the best men has lots of meaning, because it's true. The sample size is the whole world, including all men chess players and all women chess players. I think everyone agrees most of the top spots are held by men. If you want the same number to participate so you can compare that way, probably wont happen. I doubt I will ever play in a tournament ever again, for me it defeats the whole purpose of chess.

Again, this is really odd. You want a special division within a tournament? What does that mean? Prizes, pairings? Both?

If I enter a tournament as a 2000 male player, I might be competing for something like the U2100 or U2200 prize money (if it exists). Why would a 2000 female player need more than that? Because there are no female 2700-2800 players? That makes no sense. Again, achieving rarity is a function of the sample size. It seems you think women as a whole are rated much lower, (for example a bell curve shifted a few 100 points lower than the male's) but if you look at rating graphs this is not true.

I have no idea about the actual numbers, but lets say, for the sake of argument, that rarity of a potential 2700 player is 1 in 1 million among the general population.

So then, if you take in a billion males to the chess population, and 100,000 females, you can't point to there being ~1000 males over 2700 vs zero females over 2700 as proof of anything. That would be silly.

I mean, I assume everyone understands this, but just to be sure we're on the same page.

Middle Age FIDE Players
Male vs Female

Therefore no need for silly 200 point gap titles that imply being a female is a 200 point handicap.

If you want special money and tournaments and other incentives to attract women and girls, fine, but don't try to argue "there are no 2700 females, therefore we need special divisions for the weak minded ladies"

nimzomalaysian wrote:

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?

carlsen crushes the women players every time. the ratings don't lie

As we seem to be getting insults and rehashing the same arguments, I am now locking this thread.

Thanks,

David, moderator

This forum topic has been locked