What bothers me here, is this: Why does there have to be a "win" situation? If many women don't make it to 2600-2700, then perhaps they don't deserve a lot of attention if males under that level don't get it (they do I think, but primarily nationally). I say then don't compensate in any way for failing, just deny them that attention. If there are very few women who get there, so be it -- it's not the end of the world. It's sad to fail, but that's life: you only succeed when you do what's necessary. If you do fail, either accept it, or do something about it; but of all things don't complain and ask for exclusive rewards just because of your gender or race!

It doesn't matter that they are larger - it matters that they are different. What bothers me is that there are people who make the claim that men and women have the exact same cognitive abilities, when the only conclusive evidence even remotely related to this one way or another is that there is a measurable physical difference in the male and female brain. Whatever this difference means - whether it be a cognitive advantage for either sex, or whether it has no effect - has not been proven. As a scientist, I don't approve of unfounded conclusions.

There is certainly a great amount of inconclusive evidence, such as the current situation with the gender performance gap in chess. The problem, as well as the main point of this thread, is what should be done about it. Elubas suggests that we do away with titles and tournaments exclusively for women - this is a strong statement in favor of gender equality that relies on the assumption that men and women have the exact same potential in chess. Before that potential is realized (if ever), I fear this would have a detrimental effect in motivating more women to play chess. Then again, complete segregation would make the opposite statement: that men are inherently better at chess than women.

To answer the original question: this ambiguity is the reason why we have separate categories for women. If the ambiguity didn't exist, there'd either be full segregation or no segregation whatsoever.

As an aside, did anyone catch the recent U.S. chess championships?

The men's tournament wasn't that exciting. There were a couple of (minor) upsets, but plenty of draws and the eventual winner was pretty obvious throughout.

The women's tournament however was full of twists, with the winner getting off to a terrible start. Most games were decisive, and the final went all the way to an armageddon decider. 

On this basis, I certainly hope the women's tournaments continue, and don't get stopped under the misguided idea that they are making a social statement.

While I don't know the exact physiological reason, it strikes me that testosterone might affect the brain in such a way that those with higher levels play chess better.  BTW, this doesn't mean jack.  It is well established that being good at chess doesn't mean being smart.

Azukikuru: First of all, it's unclear if these women only things are really doing that much -- they may have helped a little, but they are still totally outnumbered by the men.

Second, I feel it's more important to emphasize and respect the value of accomplishment rather than giving in to those who achieve less and basically just complain about their disadvantages all the time (but of course, life always obstacles in it; there are literally thousands of things one could complain about; they're inevitable). I want a world where many women play and where we equally reward everybody -- for what they achieve, and nothing more. However, if I had to pick one, I would irrevocably choose the latter, no question at all, because otherwise it's disrespectful to those that actually do make it to the top.

As far as proving women, indubitably, on a biological level, have clearly ( certainly not just negligibly) inherent potential for chess, that's not going to happen anytime soon, probably never. They're different yes, but frankly we can make no conclusion anywhere near clear about supremacy.

But the world just isn't equal. In Norway the strongest woman has a rating of 2200 and the strongest man is 2800. A Norwegian man reaching 2700 will be seen as a great player but nothing unbelievable since he will be 100 points behind Carlsen, while a woman that reaches 2700 will be 500 points ahead of #2 in Norway (and be the highest rated woman in the world), and her achievement will be seen as greater.

I understand, and I respect this premise, but it relies on the assumption that gender has no effect on chess potential. People on both sides of the argument say that their stance is "obvious" - men and women "obviously" have the same potential, or men are "obviously" better at chess than women. To me, the only thing that's obvious is that this describes a contradiction.

Earlier in this thread, someone suggested that we should just ask women which way they would prefer it. I think that this is the current stance in the chess world: give women the choice of common or separate tournaments; and one certainly isn't forced to apply for a women's title if they don't want to. Given the uncertainty of how things "really" are, I think that this currently is a prudent and wise way to do things. There will always be time to reassess the situation if the performance difference diminishes in the future.

 decoration, renovation. make-up

cooking

at home ?

Well for a long time it was only men that could go to university, and many other opportunities were closed to women too, so the invention thing is not that surprising.

But in any case, it's generally people who've achieved nothing in their own lives who try to make a big thing of which gender / nationality / race etc is "better" (the answer is always their's)

OK here goes. I started playing chess because my bf spent many hours playing and is quite good. You know how it goes, if you can`t beat him join him. I`m not good at chess and never was. My kids use to beat me when they were in elementary school. However I find I actually enjoy Chess.com. I get to play with different people and if I loose I say well at least it raised his score. Hey I sometimes win which is a pleasent surprise.

 It`s a question on concentration isn`t it? And tactic, women, I think are more for logic.

Men are better because as they are able to concentrate on one thing at a time, women are used to multi-tasking and it deminishes our concentration.

Playing chess is a helpful mind exercise, we don`t all play to prepare for tornements, some don`t need to proove themselves, others it`s the challenge. All his own I say. Whatever  makes you happy! ..

See men and women don`t think alike. We accept men`s differences and don`t put them down for it. I`m so happy to have been born a women.

And thank you to all the men who take time to play us although they might get beaten.

If you consider yourself a member of the Master Gender + Race, you should have no problems addressing people's actual arguments, rather than resorting to insults. 

in chess there are 3 'main' categories.   computers,male, female.   the second and third are certanly lucky that the first has its own

Firstly what "fact"?

Secondly nobody played the "race card". It's interesting that you leapt to that conclusion. Note that my profile pic is Gary Coleman, not me. 

Finally why are you using so many capitals and exclamation marks? Do you believe it makes anything you're saying more sensible? 

go and troll somewhere else

Behind every great man, is a great women. She encourages and stands by her man. Without women men would be no where. By the way did you know that at one time secrerial was also only men? I wonder if it`s because women stayed home and took care of her children. There were no day cares back then. Women were so ingenius is providing a good home for her husband and children, she didn`t have time for anything else. But then men started slacking in there responsibility as provider and the women had no choice but go to work.

However this has nothing to do with Chess..Chess is just a game..Lets have fun!

I have a confession to make: although I've read every post and followed every link in this thread, whenever I see the name AnthonyRBrown I skip the trollicious post

I absolutely agree that separate women titles should exist if they inherently have a disadvantage, but if it is simply a matter of drumming up interest in the game, why not other titles for less represented groups, i.e. Africans, Queers, etc.

I agree with part of this.  To understand a woman, you must NOT use any logic whatsoever.  I don't know about the beating them with love thing.

A woman is a drain on the soul and a distraction from important things like chess.  Maybe if they didn't talk and want to buy stuff, they'd be good for companionship.

Can you tell I'm married?  What's this topic about again???

Why do we have woman categories?

They are an anachronism, a sign that chess hasn't really caught up to the modern age and equality.

Just an opinion, forged by missing out on the money (4th usually) and then seeing a female who finished 10th get a fat cheque.