1. Women earn less in most sports including chess because less people are interested in e.g. women's chess than men's. Men's chess generate more profit.
2. Why are they separate? I guess it's because women are statistically about 200 ELO lower than men. Correct me if I'm wrong.
By saying this you are directly inferring that Men are better at chess than Women.
If this is the reason why they are seperate, it shouldn't be.
1. Women earn less in most sports including chess because less people are interested in e.g. women's chess than men's. Men's chess generate more profit.
2. Why are they separate? I guess it's because women are statistically about 200 ELO lower than men. Correct me if I'm wrong.
By saying this you are directly inferring that Men are better at chess than Women.
If this is the reason why they are seperate, it shouldn't be.
He is just pointing out that men have higher elos on average and that they generate more profit, nothing sexist, just facts.
FIDE is a world-wide organization, so their rules have to apply everywhere. There are many nations where men and women are forbidden by law from mixing in public--including chess tournaments. So in those places there can only be separate tournaments. So FIDE has separate gender categories. In fact, it was FIDE that started the women's world championship (1920s).
There are also historical reasons--for many, many years women were forbidden or discouraged from playing in men's tournaments. Even when conditions became freer most top tournaments were invitation-only, and no women got invited. It's hard to get highly rated if you can't play against highly-rated players.
For example, Nona Gaprindashvili, longtime women's world champion, got a special dispensation to become the first woman to earn the "normal" GM title. Her performance and rating easily qualified, but she could only get into sufficiently strong tournaments totaling 23 games (24 was required) within the required time frame. Even after she was a GM she rarely got invited to prestigious competitions, so she had to continue to play mostly in women's events in order to make a living.
Because women were discriminated against in chess for so long, very few women were attracted to the game. One of the reasons for separate women's sections and prizes is to attract more female players--similar to the way FIDE gives out titles to "lesser" players in parts of the world where chess is practically unknown to grow the game there.
That conditions have improved greatly in the last 25 years is commendable, but those of us in freer parts of the world can't take our experience as the common global standard. FIDE periodically readjusts FM, IM, GM, WFM, WIM, and WGM standards and the requirements are slowly becoming closer. Someday they'll be equal, but at present women face more obstacles and have less opportunities in chess in many places.
Everything you said has no bearing on any of the women players in the Western world. No current women who hold the Grandmaster title are from the countries you are talking about. I think one from Iran defected to Spain. What Judit Polgar did was prove she could play with the men. She shunned the Women's World title on principle. All GM's have the freedom to play in tournaments with open and women's sections. Why are the women who hold GM titles afraid to play in the open sections? GM Irina Krush has played many years in the US Chess Championship only in the women's section. Why?
1. Women earn less in most sports including chess because less people are interested in e.g. women's chess than men's. Men's chess generate more profit.
2. Why are they separate? I guess it's because women are statistically about 200 ELO lower than men. Correct me if I'm wrong.
By saying this you are directly inferring that Men are better at chess than Women.
If this is the reason why they are seperate, it shouldn't be.
He is just pointing out that men have higher elos on average and that they generate more profit, nothing sexist, just facts.
Women have less opportunities to play against men and therefore lack invaluable experience from these top ranking players.
In other sports like basketball it is clear that Men have a biological advantage over women and therefore a logical arguement can be made that they shouldn't be allowed to compete with men. What makes chess beautiful is that no matter who you are, if you have have the intellectual prowess over your opponent, you will win the game.
I have a theory that if these women were given the same opportunity to go to these tournaments as Men do, and show an example that they can rival or even beat the greats of chess that more females would get into chess competitvely. This theory was somewhat put into practice when the show 'The Queen's Gambit' came out and we saw a boom in female chess players.
If anyone has an arguement to prove that Men are objectively better than females at chess I would love to see it.
Men's and women's chess should not be seperated
It's not. There's no such thing as a men's tournament or men's title. The largest and most important tournaments and titles are open to everyone, regardless of age and gender. Men and women regularly play against each other in open events.
The largest and most important tournaments are not open to everyone, look no further than the most prestigious event, the Sinquefield Cup which is invite only and iirc I've never heard of a women that has been invited to it.
Everything you said has no bearing on any of the women players in the Western world. No current women who hold the Grandmaster title are from the countries you are talking about. I think one from Iran defected to Spain. What Judit Polgar did was prove she could play with the men. She shunned the Women's World title on principle. All GM's have the freedom to play in tournaments with open and women's sections. Why are the women who hold GM titles afraid to play in the open sections? GM Irina Krush has played many years in the US Chess Championship only in the women's section. Why?
I don't pay a lot of attention to international chess affairs, so I am surprised to learn that FIDE has dropped all affiliates outside of "the Western world". Is there a new organization with new rules that now governs chess in the rest of the world? Is Russia included in "the Western world"? Will titled players from India, China, wherever now need to move to a Western nation and re-earn their titles? It's going to be a real headache to have different rules and qualifications in different nations rather than just have FIDE regulations apply globally--those rules were designed to cover conditions everywhere.
Female GMs, like their male counterparts, are professionals who make individual career decisions based on what will be most financially remunerative for them.
NO female GM, IM or untitled player has the option of playing in the Saudi Arabian Championship together with men.
1. Women earn less in most sports including chess because less people are interested in e.g. women's chess than men's. Men's chess generate more profit.
2. Why are they separate? I guess it's because women are statistically about 200 ELO lower than men. Correct me if I'm wrong.
By saying this you are directly inferring that Men are better at chess than Women.
If this is the reason why they are seperate, it shouldn't be.
He is just pointing out that men have higher elos on average and that they generate more profit, nothing sexist, just facts.
Women have less opportunities to play against men and therefore lack invaluable experience from these top ranking players.
In other sports like basketball it is clear that Men have a biological advantage over women and therefore a logical arguement can be made that they shouldn't be allowed to compete with men. What makes chess beautiful is that no matter who you are, if you have have the intellectual prowess over your opponent, you will win the game.
I have a theory that if these women were given the same opportunity to go to these tournaments as Men do, and show an example that they can rival or even beat the greats of chess that more females would get into chess competitvely. This theory was somewhat put into practice when the show 'The Queen's Gambit' came out and we saw a boom in female chess players.
If anyone has an arguement to prove that Men are objectively better than females at chess I would love to see it.
something tells me that if we put the top woman GM against other (invisible) male GMs that are 2600-2800 she would still lose/draw more than win. its not about gender. its about the stats and the stats show that men typically are shown to be better than females in chess.
i think its because us men are willing to put the hours into some dumb game while women dont want to and consider it a waste of time. This is probably biological.
women are allowed to play in any tournaments they want, women sections are resigned to encourage women to play more (as well as the title). however there is NOT a requirement for women to play these sections, if they want to play in the other sections they are more than welcomed to.
1. Women earn less in most sports including chess because less people are interested in e.g. women's chess than men's. Men's chess generate more profit.
2. Why are they separate? I guess it's because women are statistically about 200 ELO lower than men. Correct me if I'm wrong.
By saying this you are directly inferring that Men are better at chess than Women.
If this is the reason why they are seperate, it shouldn't be.
He is just pointing out that men have higher elos on average and that they generate more profit, nothing sexist, just facts.
Women have less opportunities to play against men and therefore lack invaluable experience from these top ranking players.
In other sports like basketball it is clear that Men have a biological advantage over women and therefore a logical arguement can be made that they shouldn't be allowed to compete with men. What makes chess beautiful is that no matter who you are, if you have have the intellectual prowess over your opponent, you will win the game.
I have a theory that if these women were given the same opportunity to go to these tournaments as Men do, and show an example that they can rival or even beat the greats of chess that more females would get into chess competitvely. This theory was somewhat put into practice when the show 'The Queen's Gambit' came out and we saw a boom in female chess players.
If anyone has an arguement to prove that Men are objectively better than females at chess I would love to see it.
something tells me that if we put the top woman GM against other (invisible) male GMs that are 2600-2800 she would still lose/draw more than win. its not about gender. its about the stats and the stats show that men typically are shown to be better than females in chess.
i think its because us men are willing to put the hours into some dumb game while women dont want to and consider it a waste of time. This is probably biological.
The last thing you said is just crazy nothing more to say
ikr Um I don't think it should be separated, this isn't the same thing as sports because men are biologically stronger so it would be unfair, but in chess, there is no gender unfairness.
but now thinking about it, i don't think that it is separated
there is an exclusively only women section, and then an open section in which both men and women can play. of course it depends on the tourney, some do not have a women section at all and it is only open section.
The last thing you said is just crazy nothing more to say
biology of the male and female is quite different both mentally and physically. what i said was not crazy. [Abusive comment removed; DS]
ok ok No insults I am reporting u
What have i said wrong? Im only stating what's true. Your feelings don't matter, the truth does.
I agree, there should be separate categories for men and women. There is a great video about this, I'll share the link. I think it's fair but not afraid to look at facts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arWdJiqwNI0