Where'd this idea of segregation come from??
I was afraid someone would have asked, which forces my attempt at explanation, be it successful or not. "What if a GIRL became world chess champion?" It's always a man. Then I thought...FIDE labels male grandmasters as "GM" and females as "WGM."
I was thinking, that, to call a woman a "WGM" instead of a "GM" segregates them from the men. So why not call every one a "GM" who achieves that status?
I'm sorry, but FIDE does list women who fulfill grandmaster requirements as GM. e.g. GM Polgar.
Oh, well, then...I stand corrected.
And speaking of batgirl, my brother is a sculptor...and made a harley-quinn statuette that was totally awesome!
I don't know where it came from and I 've never seen a written explanation or looked for one really... The ratings required for men and women's titles are different:
http://chess.about.com/od/chesscommunities/a/A-Guide-To-Chess-Titles.htm
There are WGMs like Natalia Pogonina that broke the 2500 rating requirement for men grandmasters though.
"The ratings required for men and women's titles are different"
Of course they are. Women's tiles aren't comparable to men's titles, nor were they ever meant to be. They were established as a way to measure women against women since back then almost no women played in "men's" tournaments (although some did). I would guess women's titles are around a step below corresponding men's title.
2 steps really. 200 rating points below the open equivalent.
I've wondered about the WGM title. It strikes me that it may well be time to eliminate it. Misunderstandings like the one the just arose here are one good reason. The fact that a sizeable number of women can now attain regular GM status is another. It's always been hard for me to think of the WGM as anything more than patronizing, and I've always been surprised that women players accept the title at all rather than seeing it as an obnoxious pat on the "pretty little head."
That's just me, though.
Why are there no famous women baseball players?
Why are you comparing chess, an intellectual exercise, to athletics, a physical exercise? The point was conceded long ago that there exist morphological differences between human males and females.
You would be better off asking why there no famous women ... chemists, mathematicians, physicists, doctors, lawyers, comuter scientists, geologists, astronomers, philosophers, writers, etc? And the answer is, there are!
Post #506: On the other hand, some women get insulted when you believe they should be insulted by the titles, as if you're telling them what to be insulted by.
Although I think that's an overreaction, personally.
Why are there no famous women baseball players?
Why are you comparing chess, an intellectual exercise, to athletics, a physical exercise? The point was conceded long ago that there exist morphological differences between human males and females.
You would be better off asking why there no famous women ... chemists, mathematicians, physicists, doctors, lawyers, comuter scientists, geologists, astronomers, philosophers, writers, etc? And the answer is, there are!
I'm not convinced that even your set of questions is terribly relevant. Chess is not an open-ended intellectual pursuit, but rather a closed system. Computers are better at chess than people, but they would make terrible scientists, lawyers, philosophers and the like.
Winning at chess is about spending huge amounts of time on chess. Women can do that if they choose, so the only thing between us and a female world champ is having enough women choose to devote themselves to chess.
Why are there no famous women baseball players?
Why are you comparing chess, an intellectual exercise, to athletics, a physical exercise? The point was conceded long ago that there exist morphological differences between human males and females.
You would be better off asking why there no famous women ... chemists, mathematicians, physicists, doctors, lawyers, comuter scientists, geologists, astronomers, philosophers, writers, etc? And the answer is, there are!
I'm not convinced that even your set of questions is terribly relevant. Chess is not an open-ended intellectual pursuit, but rather a closed system. Computers are better at chess than people, but they would make terrible scientists, lawyers, philosophers and the like.
Winning at chess is about spending huge amounts of time on chess. Women can do that if they choose, so the only thing between us and a female world champ is having enough women choose to devote themselves to chess.
Implicit in the coment, "Why are there no famous women baseball players" is the thought, expressed by c-h-e-a-t-e-r (and his other handles), that men are naturally superior to momen.
Women are segregated in chess, just as in golf, marathons, hockey, wrestling, etc. The reasoning is simple, women have an inherent genetic disadvantage when competing head to head against men in those types of events.
C-h-e-a-t-e-r males the case that there exists a genentic disadvantage for women, and chess is a competiton like "golf, marathons, hockey, wrestling, etc." I contend it is different and that his premise is unsubstantiated.
The very idea inherently sexist idea. Thought experient - substitute "African" instead of "women" as ask yourself if that is a morally acceptable statement.
Post #506: On the other hand, some women get insulted when you believe they should be insulted by the titles, as if you're telling them what to be insulted by.
Although I think that's an overreaction, personally.
I think the cause is that womens'('s, whatever...) professional chess hasn't run for as long as men's chess and so the rating averages are different. I don't know how Carlsen got so far ahead of the men but in general it should be very difficult to get a rating that much higher than your peers.
I'm guessing that a woman would have to play in a lot of open tournaments to get the sort of ratings that men get. The average of the women's top 100 must be 2400ish and jumping to 2700 doesn't seem very likely.
It's due to men's fear of women.
It´s due to the fact that no women have won the Candidates Tournament, how are they suppose to challenge the champion?
Q: What if a girl became World Chess Champion?
A: Why are men and women segregated? Perhaps it's because the men will fear that a woman someday will beat them in an embarassing loss where they overlooked a key square, a weakness, a hanging piece, a vulnerable King, etc. etc. So having a woman become the World Chess Champion will offend all the men.
The WC qualification system is NOT a "men only" cycle of tournaments (but the Women WC is a "women only" championship).
There were women that played in the World Cup 2013, if any of them would have finished 1st or 2nd, they would have played in the Candidates Tournament, then they could have played against the champion and become the WC. Nothing was stopping them.
Hou Yifan, Anna Ushenina, Judit Polgar and Deysi Cori played.
All of them were out after the first round.
Nothing wrong with saying the world's fastest women will NEVER beat the world's fastest man. That's not sexist--that's reality. Likewise, nothing wrong with saying a woman will never become a WCC. And the FIDE top 100 list backs me up.
I tend to think it is a bit sexist to say "will never". Because you don't know the future, obviously, so the reason for saying it does imply a sexist attitude, in my view:)
Your views are fine. Your delivery is poor. The mudslinging isn't necessary. At any rate it doesn't seem easy at all to explain away why so few women participate in the world cup or many of the open tournaments.
Your views are fine. Your delivery is poor. The mudslinging isn't necessary. At any rate it doesn't seem easy at all to explain away why so few women participate in the world cup or many of the open tournaments.
Only 4 women participated in the World Cup because those were the only women that qualified.
Likewise, nothing wrong with saying a woman will never become a WCC. And the FIDE top 100 list backs me up.
We talked about the FIDE top 100 list earlier in the thread. You agreed with me that if more women played chess we'd see more women in the top 100.
So now lets suppose that there was a renaissance in women's chess playing, and indeed, more women broke into the top 100. Let's say it's about 75 to 25 in favor of men, but still more women than there are now (Right? Someone help me out with the numbers if I'm off). It's still a statistical improbability, but the odds of having a woman WC have drastically improved.
Your argument is that it is something biological, the construction of the male brain vs. the female brain, that would keep a woman from breaking through to the top, right? So even with more women in the top 100 we wouldn't see one at the very top level.
Sorry if it seems like I'm just restating what has already been said, I'm just trying to make sure I have the right feel of what the argument is. I don't think it's political correctness run amok to say that I disagree with you, out of 3.5 billion women there should be one that can play chess at the highest level, it's just a matter of finding her and nurturing her interest in the game.
Where'd this idea of segregation come from??