Is there a reason why female chess is separated from mainstream chess?

If we do see another Judit, it would mean everything. Iirc, FIDE is made up of 13% women and females make up for 1% of the total grandmaster population. Might be outdated. With these abysmally low percentages, having another Judit so soon would mean that the only thing limiting women's top level appearances would be the fact that there's just more men playing chess. If the percentages were proportional I believe more talented women would rise to the top.

The reason is simple: women don’t play chess as much as men do. Having tournaments for women encourages women to play by allowing them to compete and earn money to continue playing.

Why is there a tournament for champion of Britain or Brazil or Egypt? You can say it’s stupid that they should just let anyone compete! The champion of Belgium is a meaningless title! No, it encourages play amongst Belgian players, even if it’s not as important.

Why are there senior tournaments? Same reason. It gives them a reason to play.

If there’s a senior or Belgian or woman player who can compete in the big tournaments, you let them. The other tournaments are less important but that doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t exist.

Women's titles were probably introduced to encourage more women to play chess.  In the 1970's, I played in about 40 tournaments.  Two of those tournaments had one female participant.  Practically every tournament that I have played in in the last 10 years has had many female players.  It is probably time to drop the distinction, but traditions are hard to overcome.

Women-only tournaments should not be removed. The prestige and cash prizes provide important motivation to female chess players who are trying to compete in a male-dominated field. The same cannot be said for women's titles.

The basic fact is that women and mens chess is just too far apart. Mens chess is far more competitive. It doesn't mean that women can't get close to mens level, but men seem to have a bit more affinity to chess, due to higher efficiency at things like pattern recognition. It makes no sense to combine men and womens chess. It's kind of like the NBA. Womens NBA at top play, is about as good as teenage club level boys play. It wouldn't make sense to compare. Mens NBA rakes in many times more cash, and the quality of play is like night and day. 

Now chess is an exception in terms of women vs men in sports, because women aren't mentally lacking severely compared to men, like they are severely physically lacking compared to men in physical sports, so there is a lot of room for improvement, provided the pool of women players grow, which it slowly is currently. 

For the time being, men are still vastly dominant in chess, and the only female chess player I can even think of that has ever given the top male chess players a run for their money is Judit Polgar. None of the other female chess players have ever come close. 

 

The reason I read was that this was actually to encourage more women to play chess.
But yes, is seems quite sexist especially for this century. There is absolutely no reason now for these traditions to continue.
Then again you could also say it’s against men. Why do we always assume it’s the women that are separated from men and not vice versa.

Women have titles for the same reason why GMs retain their title: to encourage play.

I could argue that if you get old and lose your skills, you should lose your GM title. I mean if you’re losing to IMs and are not playing at GM strength, then you’re not a GM! You’re a GM in name only!

If GMs could lose their title, they wouldn’t play ever.

Why is there an NM title? Same reason: it encourages play. Some argue that it’s meaningless, but it’s important to those who attain it.

https://new.uschess.org/news/should-womens-chess-titles-be-eliminated

This article was written by a female chess journalist, examining cases to identify the pros and cons of having women's titles. Statements from actual titled female chess players are featured here. It's quite informative and I invite everyone to take 10 minutes to read it.

I think super GMs Amin, Adams, Howell, Jones, Mcshane, etc. would all beg to differ...

I cannot imagine anyone could not understand why if they live in the world and keep their eyes open: Men can very often be asses and bullies. Often the weakest loser men pick on women. Often men that seem normal when they are around other men, as soon as they are alone with women act like real creeps.  I see nothing wrong with giving women a place to enjoy our shared game that is a "creepfreezone". If you want more women to share our game it's a no brainer.

Lots of opinions without presenting facts in this forum, Agadmator had analysed a woman vs man chess game and shared an excellent article on why there is a rating difference in women and men chess. Solely because there's a participation difference. As much as we want there to be equality, women are not even allowed, let alone motivated to move forward in such sports. Sure, the participation is much higher today than it was, say, two decades ago but the data represents that the participation difference is significantly higher. So before we compare the top women and men players, we need to analyse the participation in the lower levels otherwise it wouldn't make much sense.

I literally linked three articles that contained empirical data on why participation is the reason there's a gap between the amount of men and women in the highest level of play. If people actually read them, I don't think this discussion would drag on for this long.

The only unknown question is how many pages will this thread run to before it gets locked?

Very well said, it is solely due to the participation and time spent on the game. Separate tournaments and women-only titles give more incentive to play. Men are not smarter than women by any means.

@fizzy. You clearly missed the point of my argument.

it won't get locked why would it

Right, the scientific data so far has pointed towards similarity in IQ averages and intellectual capabilities. The only difference is there is more men that fill the below IQ average and above average IQ levels, but besides that men and women aren't that different when it comes to brain capacity. Men might be more prone to other things and women others intellectually, but women aren't severely lacking in anything. 

 

I don't know why people keep pushing to merge womens titles and tourneys with mens. all it will do is harm womens chess. Its really bizarre. 

 

Are men allowed to compete in women's titles?  Maybe the outcome of that argument would obviate things in general.  In what way?  I have my suspicions, but defer to superior comment.

@sonia. They push for it because they don’t think it’s “fair.” They see it as special treatment as opposed to an attempt to encourage women’s play. They see it as “women get free stuff and don’t have to work as hard.”

I suppose it’s a perfectly fine view to take if you don’t care that women don’t play, and don’t think that encouraging women to play is a worthwhile goal. I personally think that women should be given extra incentive to play and don’t think that men lose anything by allowing it. Being snotty and offended by it is kind of obnoxious.

A Professional WNBA Team would demolish any teenaged boys club in a game. No contest. I’m assuming a regular boys club, ages 14-16 from the local YMCA is meant and not 19 year olds entering college. Put the top 5 high school ballers on the same team - maybe they’d be competitive but likely not win vs the WNBA stars. These ladies are good, very good nowadays and over the years play as a well oiled machine. Their experience and talent is superior to “teenaged boys clubs”

Woman shoot hoops as well as the men. Ever watch 3 point contests ? They stay on par with the men. The differences lie in physical size and strength. The finesse is close to being equal.