Yes X Dave12 .....but only if we did not segregate the sexes in championship play . I guess males may be intimidated by that.
I have always been opposed to segregation by sex. Sports, careers, chess, etc. Perhaps that is due to being inculcated in second-wave feminism when I was younger. Maybe it is because I am an egalitarian. "Separate" is never "equal."
Chess will never get wide mainstream attention because it's one of the toughest games you can play. The average person is not ready to devote brain power to chess. Look at what's mainstream. Watered down movies and music. Chess is not simplistic like mainstream arts are, so don't ever expect it to have lasting appeal. A girl would give it a spark, but it wouldn't last.
What do you mean by Spark excalty?
Why not, i always wanted that,women have the ability to put plans more stronger than men
a computer will beat the game in 5-10 years computing every possible move to its final result
Impossible. The number of possible games is estimated at 1 followed by 120 zeros. That's games, not positions. I think a 7 piece endgame DB takes up over 4 terabytes. I doubt there is enough HD memory on the planet to store every possible position on a chess board even if a computer could calculate every possible game(which is impossible). It is said there are more possible positions on a chess board than electrons in the observable universe. Chess will never be "solved".
Go look up how checkers was solved to that you can understand why you are wrong.
I don't think "boy" and "girl" are necessarily analagous though quite often they are. At any rate, I tend to think we will not see a female chess WC any time soon, if ever, as the probability seems to be very much against that: unless a far, far, far greater number of girls take up the game and continue competitvely into adolescence and adulthood, the chances are slim there will even be another woman in the top ten. But it would be nice to be wrong.
why are we so worried about how popular it is -just play
why are we so worried about how popular it is -just play
Because some people think that if chess becomes more popular there would be bigger prizes in tournaments. And then they would be able to win some money from chess.
Some of these statements you users are making sound sexist, like the ones about women having to give up their social lives and making rules to account for women crying. This is stereotyping! Not all women think being social is necessarially important or cry when they lose! (In fact, some men think and do these things.) Women are not that very different from men, and I don't know if some of the users we joking, but if you weren't, you shouldn't make assumptions about women.
Of course jcrome. I think speaking of things in terms of averages has its value for sure, but there is a right and a wrong way to use it. Averages can give us probabilities; for example, if women are better at multitasking than men, then it allows us to make a guess that good multitaskers we come across are more likely to be women. And that guess is better than 50-50, but it's still a guess, and it can easily be wrong. You might find some women who are outright dreadful at multitasking -- and all of that is perfectly consistent with women being on average better at it.
So these deviations from the average tendency should not be discounted -- imagine if a woman put in tons of work to get great at chess; the assumptions against her would make her feel like she might as well not have put in all those diligent years of work because no one would "believe" her anyway -- way to reward her for her accomplishments... not. She shouldn't suffer just because of her gender's chess history.
Basically, if more people understood what it actually means for a group to be on average better at something, there would be far less mis-communications. Yeah, I do think men are on average better than women at chess, the reasons of which are up for debate, but I treat people as individuals, not as statistics.
"The first thing we need to do is have a mixed Candidate's tournament"
Only if that mixed Candidate's tournament contained players all of which are worthy of having a chance to get into a title match. To "make sure" the Candidate's tournament is mixed misses the whole point -- in order to do that you have to care about the gender of the participants; that is, pick people you otherwise would not pick, because of gender. We shouldn't care about that; we should care about their chess.
So, I think you missed the whole point in equally giving women and men a chance at some unified title. Yes, it does matter. If you don't allow one group to enter, then how can you evaluate "their chess"?
Their chess is being snuffed.
Do you know that there are not "men only" tournaments, right?
I'm a little confused -- so you don't think the world champion should be based on being the best at chess? Now of course, a world champion is not necessarily going to be the best player in the world, but still to some extent this is what we're aiming for. If you are ok with 2600s being world champion, we have really different ideas of what it's for. It seems like at that point it would be nothing more than a regular tournament or something.
You also seem to misunderstand how ratings work. If there is a woman who plays at Carlsen level, she will gain points by beating her opponents every single time, if she's playing much weaker opponents. You may say that since ratings are relative, maybe all of the women improved at the same rate so they still don't gain points from each other. While theoretically possible, this is incredibly unlikely to the point of being literally ludicrous -- naturally some people will improve more than others, and this will result in those who improve raising their ratings, and those who don't improve being left behind.
That in itself should be enough, but in any event women do play with 2700s from time to time, for example Hou Yifan who played in the Tata Steel A group, 2013 I think. She did pretty well, but nonetheless, performed about what her rating suggested, since her performance rating that tournament was similar to her FIDE rating.
You don´t need to go to closed round robins to get near 2700, you can do that by playing exclusively in Open Tournaments.
Elubas, Tigerprowl seems to think that women are not allowed to compete in the world championship qualification cycle.
A woman has to do no more or less than a man regarding qualifying. A woman not qualifying can be blamed on her not meeting the requirements, not the requirements themselves.
It looks like your beliefs, tigerprowl, are based on the premise that women who play in women only events have a disadvantage when it comes to gaining rating points that they wouldn't otherwise have. If it were true, then you would have a point, there is a lack of fairness there. However, that premise is very likely to be false for reasons I won't repeat.
Elubas, Tigerprowl seems to think that women are not allowed to compete in the world championship qualification cycle.
Show me the stats. How many men are allowed? How many women? Did women simply refuse to compete or were they not allowed?
Probably didn't qualify. I'm getting the same impression as SocialPanda.
Tigerprowl, there is no gender quota or requirement to enter to the world championship qualification cycle.
Deisy Cori from Peru qualified to the World Cup 2013 by finishing 5th in the American Zonal 2013.
http://en.chessbase.com/post/peruvians-dazzle-in-american-continental-210513
http://ratings.fide.com/card.phtml?event=3801934
Her gender doesn´t matter.
(The first 4 qualified, but since GM Granda already qualified in Mar del Plata 2012, he didn´t occupy one spot).
It looks like your beliefs, tigerprowl, are based on the premise that women who play in women only events have a disadvantage when it comes to gaining rating points that they wouldn't otherwise have. If it were true, then you would have a point, there is a lack of fairness there. However, that premise is very likely to be false for reasons I won't repeat.
Yes, I believe if I never play Carlsen I will have less chance of winning against him than if I can play him today. Regardless of my level of play, if I can never play him, I will never win against him. A group of women only players in a tournament will NOT include Carlsen. Believe it or not also.
You don't need to beat Carlsen to get his rating. You just have to play as well as him. If you have plenty of 2500 players to play (2500 women do), and you beat them every time, your rating will shoot right up. Then guess what, you'll be invited to stronger tournaments. Then if you play like Carlsen again, you'll move on to 2700. And guess what, then you'll get invited to a candidates tournament and get your match -- just have to play well enough. Strong players are rewarded!
What it means to be a 2800 is to beat 2500 players a certain percentage of the time, as well as beating 2600 players a certain percentage of the time, etc. On average anyway. You can exemplify being 2800 strength by beating 2500s a crap load of the time.
Chess will never get wide mainstream attention because it's one of the toughest games you can play. The average person is not ready to devote brain power to chess. Look at what's mainstream. Watered down movies and music. Chess is not simplistic like mainstream arts are, so don't ever expect it to have lasting appeal. A girl would give it a spark, but it wouldn't last.