Men's and women's chess should not be seperated

If you're going to make a tournament based on elo, why does the statistic average between the genders even matter? A woman can still be 500 elo above a man, it doesn't matter what the average is.

I suspect the whole 'We need to protect female players' and 'We Need to have a WGM title so women can be GM's' stems from a misunderstanding caused by the player pool. There are a lot less female players which in turn means the pool of talent is smaller. Its similar to why China and the USA dominate the Olympics. Both nations have 300million plus humans to find talent. Meanwhile, Malta has 518k humans to find talent in. Its just a misconception.

Jews make up less than 1% of the world's population and yet over half of the World Chess Champions have been Jewish. How do you explain that? Maybe some groups simply like playing chess more than other groups. Maybe women simply don't wish to dedicate their lives to chess to the degree men do. Maybe young chess talents like Alice Lee should be encouraged to quit striving for "women's titles" and just try to be the best she can against male competition. Maybe women shouldn't be forced to participate in activities that don't interest them. Maybe, maybe, maybe fill in the blank.

When I made this post I was pretty ignorant of how Women's chess operated and I have now concluded that women have the chance to compete just as well as men in the Open section of a tournament instead of choosing to stay in the women's section.

I also believe that women's seperate titles and events are making chess more acessible in places where chess was and still is dominated by Men.

The reason women's chess was first introduced was to try and get more female players, as the vast majority was male dominant. As the female variant, I totally agree with this original choice as you tend to intrigue more female players in any game, sport, etc, if you make a whole league especially for them. Nowadays, there are plenty of female chess players (although still not as many as there are male players) and I think in the near future we should start combining the two. Angry puffer wrote: also the stats show the men tend to just be better, whether you like it or not. This may be true but there will have been so much more information recorded from male players because there were hardly any female players for such a long time. I mean give us a chance!

International chess competitions began in an era when women were excluded from most professions, were not able to vote, and were thought to require the protection and guidance of men. Women who enjoyed chess formed their own clubs, and slowly broke down the barriers that kept them out of many activities.

In the first half of the 20th century top-level international chess competitions were sponsored by governments or corporate (or private) sponsors. These sponsors didn't invite women to top tournaments. After WWII FIDE became the custodian of the world championship and instituted the IM and GM titles. As women had not previously been allowed to compete with the strongest players there were no female players capable of competing successfully at the highest level so FIDE came up with women's titles. Over time FIDE has adjusted the requirements for the IM, GM, WIM and WGM titles, and the standards have been slowly inching toward equality.

Eventually the standards should be the same, but there are many nations in the world that still keep women in a subservient position and/or do not allow the genders to mix in public events like chess tournaments, complicating the process.

yes truly would be

nahhh 💀

So, to my understanding, only the top 20-30 chess professionals can make a living playing chess. the 30th-ranked Chess player (Daniil Dubov)'s FIDE rating is 2707. The 1st-ranked female chess player (Ju Wenjun)'s FIDE rating is 2650. Daniil earned around $204K, while Ju's Women's World Championship winnings alone exceed this.

There is no incentive for her to join the men's because she would make less money. Sure, there are cultural phenomena allowing men to focus more on "work", but I believe the strength of the difference in outliers is a significant indication there exist more variables than just culture. Men's reaction times and ability to focus on path memorization (things more interesting than people, in general), show definitively that Title IX still holds merit. There is a social degradation akin to flat-earthers when it comes to this subject. Men and women are different.

Were both combined or more accurately, were the women's bracket to be done away with, virtually all women would lose the ability to make a living playing chess. I would argue this is true sexism. There should not be the erasure of the female condition, but rather a preservation of their spaces.