Why do we have woman categories?

That's very true. However, I think we've managed to avoid this problem in the past few pages of this discussion.

Can't we take a "don't know" stance? I don't think this is something that should be based on belief. In fact, the status quo seems to favor such an agnostic approach.

I think it's perfectly fine to create a theory with scant evidence; asserting it as fact, however, is not. After all, Einstein created his theory of relativity without any physical evidence whatsoever. Instead, the theory was based on an interpretation of physical knowledge collected up until that point in time. The theory and its implications have been used in high-speed navigation and GPS reckoning for several decades now, but conclusive evidence has not been achieved until very recently. Had we not invested in research based on merely an educated guess, we would be years behind our current level of technological development.

Some may argue that the following evidence (think of it as our "physical knowledge") is enough to form a theory:

- there is a measurable difference in the average size of male and female brains

- men have higher IQs on average than women

- men perform better in chess on average than women

This theory could state: "The perceived difference in the male and female brains leads to a performance gap in disciplines where the brain is the main tool." A corollary to this would be that men are inherently better than women in disciplines requiring spatial recognition, such as IQ tests and chess. If we were to proceed in the same way as with Einstein's relativity, we would tentatively segregate men and women in chess and see if it works out (but, as has been previously discussed, allowances for disproving this theory require that women can play in the general categories as well). Note, however, that this is no assertion of fact - it's only a reaction to the most convincing evidence presented thus far, a reaction that is judged to be wiser than simply ignoring anything that isn't proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. It is indeed saying that "we don't know", but it's also saying that "let's proceed based on what we do know before we know any better".

Also note that this theory does not preclude women's superiority in fields other than IQ tests and chess. Any evidence stating that "women perform better in X on average than men" could then be used to suggest the corollary that women are inherently better in X as compared to men (and no, I don't mean cooking). This has been suggested to be the case in disciplines where social interaction is required, although making quantitative assessments in such disciplines is more difficult.

Creating a theory is always fine of course, but this sort of attitude has lead to serious and expensive errors in the past. Einstein theory was applied before a real demostration because, correct or not, it worked well in practice. 

In my personal wiew your proposed evidence is not very solid.

- there is a measurable difference in the average size of male and female brains

(is this a joke?)

- men have higher IQs on average than women

(this is your field more than mine, but doing a quick research i have found that this is far from generally accepted. Some (and not all) publications have showed a little difference in a very restricted age range, that's all. Remember that 95% of the associations found in correlation studies do not survive the test of time)

- men perform better in chess on average than women

(Without the slightest doubt, this is true)

-There is not as accepted evidence of a correlation between IQ and chess ability

Given this, your theory is"The perceived difference in the male and female brains leads to a performance gap in disciplines where the brain is the main tool."

I'm not saying that your theory is unreasonable, but it can be attacked on several points. Time will probably tell, we only have to wait.

I wonder if people are referring to me when they bring up idealist ideas like "men and women are totally equal; equal equal equal"; I hope not.

What I am criticizing is the fact that we do have titles, yet many people insist they are promoting equality (fortunately not so many of them are in this topic right now). Obviously, this is insane (yet seen from chivalrous people), because what is happening right now is NOT equal treatment.

If you support titles, you imply that women are inherently inferior to men in chess. And that's not a bad thing at all if it's based on factual evidence. However, to those who support it saying "let's give women a better chance," though you are wording it nicely, you are still implying the bold-ed text above. To bring up "social discouragement," exclusively for one sex, thereby judging the other of course, as a sole reason for easier titles, is asinine. To use this argument, even if there is a small level of support for it, is to, firstly misunderstand what equals success -- actually achieving something; not giving up because people tell you not to try, as well as literally millions of excuses (this applies as much to men as it does women; or does someone disagree?) -- and secondly, I'll repeat: it judges the male sex; that they never (this is thoroughly implied with these titles) are as deserving of a title as a woman, because she supposedly had more to put up with (I can't emphasize this enough: this is PURE prejudice and assumption). Besides, to give only the 2100 women titles for example is to misrepresent chess talent; instead of hearing about more 2200s we're hearing about 2100 rated women and praising and recognizing them, while comparatively leaving 2200 males in the dark. 2100s are great, but if I am to pick between hearing about a 2200 vs a 2100, everything else being equal of course, obviously I'd pick the 2200. Would I care about the sex? Absolutely not; I care about the level of chess skill, and that only. I dunno, do other people get a kick out of seeing a hot 2100 girl over a 2200 male? Well, probably, but that shouldn't make her more deserving of a title over a 2100 guy. But I can certainly speak for myself that I wouldn't care what the sex was -- it in itself wouldn't make me admire them any more or less.

What I have been trying to do in my posts is twofold:

1. Go with the idea that men and women are equal purely for the sake of argument; to show that indeed by supporting titles you must imply that women are inherently inferior to men in chess, whether you like it or not.

2. To explain why, if the reasons for the disparity are social, that that isn't a good reason to get things easier; you'd be getting rewarded because you demonstrated insufficient willpower to achieve something because you were discouraged (maybe Albert Einstein was discouraged from what he ultimately did! Who knows!). In other words, you are unable to handle the inherent difficulties in becoming a strong chess player, which very much so include outside factors like discouragement or depression, even though, if you try to claim that the sexes are equal that is, you had completely equal mental capability to achieve success. It would be like getting rewarded for being a procrastinator: If you are a procrastinator, that means that you have plenty of capability to get stuff done, but you often choose to blow it off for a while; but when you don't get the job done, you can't just say you're a procrastinator and have them forgive you. On the other hand, if you argued you were mentally ill maybe you could because you're at an inherent disadvantage that is beyond your control. Same here: It would be ok to claim easier titles for a sex based on an inherent disadvantage based on biology because, quite unlike excuses, the disadvantage would be extremely clearly, and incontrovertibly, defined. And in our case, it would indeed apply itself consistently to every woman, some more than others of course. Serena Williams can serve the ball at 128 MPH, which is exceptional among women (demonstrating that a woman can still serve fast...), but clearly, the inherent limits of her gender are in demonstration: many professional male tennis players can serve faster, and they are not exceptional exactly.

Are you trying to compare poor people to women?

I mean it depends on what kind of equality you're talking about. In your case no, it's not really implying a lesser capability of learning, once they get in the class anyway, it's just implying that they have a harder time affording one, and thus, in an abstract way, applying that capability of learning.

I know, but this analogy is not very applicable, because it's talking about a totally different kind of implication from the one involving women's titles.

My statements were made purely in the context of the specific situation. I understand the potential confusion because I did not state that; I was hoping it would be assumed.

"Okay but that specific situation is comparable to other situations in which unequal treatment could be / was applied to promote equality."

Could you give an example? Your first one was not applicable.

"It is not necessary to think that women are inherently intellectually inferior to men, or even inherently inferior in chess, to uphold different treatment."

I completely disagree. For now anyway. It's mostly because I as of yet have seen no other satisfactory justification.

"There are many factors other than inherent intellectual ability that come into consideration."

A few examples? One of course was social, and I addressed that in detail.

"that we have national championships, junior championships, senior championships etc."

Well... these are gender inclusive...

Now, note how each one of those things recognize limits:

1. National championships -- limits to people in your own country. The rationale there is to see who is the best in your general area, the area where you do everything. That gives it legitimate significance for this to be a customary thing.

2. Junior championships: This obviously recognizes that juniors tend to have less capability, until they continue to grow, than adults. Even so, there are of course are a lot of competent junior players, just like competent female players.

But, compared to women's championships, the inherent disadvantages between a junior and an adult are pretty clear and indubitable; to say women's championships are ok is to either a: say their disadvantages are also incontrovertible, or b: make the "social discouragement" argument, or something similar, involving the clear flaw that it's hardly consistently applicable and clear.

3. Senior championships: Here too is an acceptance that age negatively affects your play; if it didn't, they would never feel the need to be segregated like this.

Now, if you are arguing in favor of female segregation, your best bet may be to try to compare it to national championships, because, though this is a segregation, there is no implication of inherent inferiority; there are different reasons.

So you could say that maybe women just want to get together, and they should be able to do that if they want to.

In fact, this is sexist, because it accepts that men are denied of this privilege to their respective gender. Men "don't deserve" this extra option apparently.

If you are using 2 or 3, I would again state that if you think women's championships would be no different from these two, then you must also admit that it is accepting a limit, but this time based on gender, to give women a more competitive chance.

"we also want to promote the game among the general public, and increased female participation helps promote it."

Well, we could just encourage women to play, we don't have to take it to the extreme here.

"*In the absence of counterargument, I will just continue to agree with myself. "

Well, the counterargument is in my original post, which I would prefer not to repeat. But the whole thing reflects my disagreement.

"*Social, cultural, and economic."

Ok. Such as?

"*You seem to assume that gender segregation is automatically illegitimate, but other kinds of segregation are automatically legitimate. There is no point in arguing if you take your assumptions to be self-evident."

Again, the posts on this page reflect why. In fact, that's precisely what I was doing with my previous post. You must not have found the reasons I gave; but if you do find them you will realize that I did not take my assumptions as self-evident.

"(skip) There is nothing to prevent a national champion from being a world champion. If the US national champion becomes a world champion, we will not need to abolish a US championship. It is just a separate area of competition. Similarly with junior championships. I think that you are a junior, so consistently with your position, do you propose that junior tournaments should be abolished, or that juniors should be prevented from playing in adult tournaments ? Note that Morphy, Spassky, Fischer, Anand and many others have reached a very high level of play as juniors."

You couldn't have read my post thoroughly. If you did, you would know why the logic you're proposing is not quite consistent of my argument. Close, but no cigar! I'm saying if you are going to compare female tournaments to junior championships etc, you need to admit that it is accepting limits for the purpose of leveling the playing field. It is perfectly fine as long as you accept this. But that is a requirement. I don't believe female segregation to be automatically illegitimate by any means, especially not if they are shown to have inherent limits.

Now, just because the playing field is leveled does not of course mean that junior player (as a junior) can't be world champion; it just means that statistically it's harder to do so.

But the biggest difference here between female segregation and the ones you mention is that one of the genders has exclusive privilege, but there is no equivalent segregation for males. It's inconsistent. If they have one gender, they should have the other.

I didn't imply that IQ was an absolute measure of cognitive superiority. I don't put much faith in IQ tests myself, but as far as I know, the ones that I referred to do test for excellence in the very limited scope of spatial recognition. I'm sure that there are more comprehensive tests out there (as the Wikipedia article to which you linked seems to indicate). Still, even the passage that I quoted above does recognize that differences were found in some specific areas. Is it too much of a stretch of the imagination to suggest that these differences might lead to a gap in chess potential? Overall brain-related performance can then achieve equality if women excel in another area better suited to their cerebral potential.

No, I referred to a Wikipedia article on the human brain in post #177 that confirms this. Again, the article states that "these differences do not correlate in any simple way with gray matter neuron counts or with overall measures of cognitive performance." So, bigger does not mean better in this case - however, what I see as the most significant implication is that the male and female brains are different. Note that the American Psychological Association recognizes that male and female brains also perform differently.

I know male and female brains have an averagely different size(as well as  asian and european ones for example), but I assume you know that this is no more telling on brain performance than the average dimension of male/female ears 

As already stated before, it's completely ridiculous to say that male and female brain are the same. But i can hardly understand what is the relevance of this in the present discussion, having no clue about which (and if) one is the most performing in terms of chess skills. "Is it too much of a stretch of the imagination" to convert the existing data in your theory? Maybe not too much, but it requires a lot of imagination anyway. You are too willing to convert a suspected correlation between sex and IQ into something certain. A very little correlation emerged from some studyes, for a very specific age range (no difference ever emerged from a sample <15 years old ; > 30 some studyes gave a female advantage). And yoe are sistematically avoiding the fact that no correlation between chess and IQ has ever been proved.

The relevance is that as far as I can see, chess requires an effort from the brain (as opposed to running requiring an effort from the leg muscles). And don't get hung up on IQ: I only used it as another example of a discipline where efforts from the brain are required, and where there is a difference in performance between the sexes. If it were only for the IQ test results, we wouldn't be having this conversation; it would be too much of a stretch of the imagination to extend the difference to chess (without any other evidence), exactly because there is no proven correlation between IQ and chess ability. The most relevant piece of evidence pertaining to chess is, of course, the difference in chess performance.

Putting it more concisely: "Our brains are different [1]. They perform differently in different areas. For example, IQ tests have shown this [2]. As another unrelated example, chess results also show this [3]." However, these are statistical studies that make no corrections for suspected social influences (that may or may not change the results of the studies in links 2 and 3). Presently, it is impossible to quantify these influences, and it may be so for a very long time.

Whatever the cause, the chess performance gap is undeniable. Therefore, statistically speaking, it is probable that at the present time, an average new female player will not perform as well as an average new male player. This should be reason enough to have separate categories for men and women, even if the difference is caused by social pressure instead of inherent cerebral potential.

"The relevance is that as far as I can see, chess requires an effort from the brain (as opposed to running requiring an effort from the leg muscles). And don't get hung up on IQ: I only used it as another example of a discipline where efforts from the brain are required, and where there is a difference in performance between the sexes."

No, you used it as an "evidence", not as an example. (post #357) I'm glad to see that you are now recognizing that it's not an evidence at all:

"there is no proven correlation between IQ and chess ability. The most relevant piece of evidence pertaining to chess is, of course, the difference in chess performance."

"Putting it more concisely: "Our brains are different [1](Yes,obviously true). They perform differently in different areas. For example, IQ tests have shown this [2](No. IQ test have provided various and often contradictory results. Nothing conclusive) . As another unrelated example, chess results also show this [3(interesting graph, thank you)]." However, these are statistical studies that make no corrections for suspected social influences (that may or may not change the results of the studies in links 2 and 3). Presently, it is impossible to quantify these influences, and it may be so for a very long time. (completely agree)

Whatever the cause, the chess performance gap is undeniable. Therefore, statistically speaking, it is probable that at the present time, an average new female player will not perform as well as an average new male player.This should be reason enough to have separate categories for men and women, even if the difference is caused by social pressure instead of inherent cerebral potential."

An understandable point of wiew. According to me there is really no need to suppress woman titles. They will become obsolete with the years, and are already not relevant for the top female players.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. It's an "example" of "evidence" in favor of there being a difference in the way that male and female brains perform. Of course, it's not evidence in favor of men being inherently better than women in chess. Surely we don't want to argue over petty semantics.

I was basing this on the Wikipedia article provided by LordNazgul, which agreed with the couple of links that I provided earlier: that there is a difference in performance in specific areas. I'm fine with making the IQ tests more comprehensive (spanning a number of different areas) and normalizing the total results so that there is no "overall" difference between the sexes.

How could you possibly know that?

I don't know, but I might have guessed visuo-spatial ability. I'm sure that someone specializing in that field of study would be able to provide an answer, or at least a better educated guess. It only shows how much work needs to be done to convincingly explain the difference.

"How could you possibly know that?"

You're right, i apologize. It's my personal idea and interpretation of the facts, not something I have evidence for. My guess is based on the fact that a "real" GM title is no longer an incredible result for a woman (i can't recall the exact number of woman reaching the GM requirements, around 20 if i remember correctly, most of them in recent years) so it's rather pointless in my opinion to have a WGM title when it's clear that being a woman doesn't preclude at all  the possibility of reaching GM strenght. But it's just a personal opinion.

I don't think the GM title is the crux of the issue. You need a 2500 rating and three norms to get the title. The strongest male players hover around 2800 points, and the average gender gap is 100 points, which means that the strongest women players would have 200 points more than needed for the title. Therefore, the fact that some women have reached GM status doesn't indicate that the gap is about to go away.

LordNazgul: it's not true,top female players play almost exclusively in open tournaments, with the exception of the WWC qualification tournaments. But yes, the gap at the top is higher than 100. 

 "Therefore, the fact that some women have reached GM status doesn't indicate that the gap is about to go away."

No, it doesn't. In my personal opinion the gap will either  go away or be reduced to a very little one (i don't know in favour of who). But i have no proof of this, it's just my personal idea. I could create graphs indicating how the average rating for top ten male/female players is getting smaller.  I could point out that IQ measurements have failed to really prove an IQ difference between man and woman. But i know this sort of things are not an evidence. 

Both our points of wiew are perfecttly reasonable. We have no way to discover the correct one. And that's all. Time will tell.

Quite simply you are wrong, and your error is compouded when you refer to better ideas than yours as "insane".

Let's assume, for the sake of argument that men and women have equal capabilities. Then, let's observe how social conditions have deprived women of equal opportunities. Action might be taken to mitigate the enduring consequences of centuries of oppression so that, in time, EQUALITY would become social reality.

Of course, you could conyinue to ignore centuries of history and all other available data, and simply reason from intuition that is grounded in misunderstanding. That's what you have been doing these past two weeks.

I'm still waiting for you to complete the reading assignment. I am losing faith that you ever will do this work. Perhaps you find information taxing.

As I said, the main exceptions are the WWC qualifying tournaments. Both this events (the WWC proper and the W Grand Prix, designed to find a challenger for WWC Hou Yifan (won by GM Koneru ) have taken place very recently. Also the european female championship is underway.This is why a quick research gave you the wrong impression that playing women only tournaments is the rule and not the exception. Instead apart for the mentioned tournament the top female players compete mainly in open events. For example the last rated event with GM yifan is the chinese open championship (she scored 6/11).She also played in the asian individual open. GM Kosteniuk, WGM ju wenjun, IM Pogonina, WGM Paikidze played in the recent Aeroflot open.  GM Lahno and IM Sadchev played in the recent TATA steel C. IM Muzychuk and IM Muzychuk (sisters ) played in the B and C section the year before.  This is not a deep research, there are much more tournaments but these are the ones i remember at the moment.

It's simply impossible to reach 2600 strenght by playing mainly in tournaments with an average elo of 2400. Top female players are forced to enter open tournaments to remain competitive. GM Polgar is still an exception of course, because she never plays in female only events.

I just recently learned the game of chess by reading the directions from the chess set because my child wanted to learn how to play.  When I was a little girl there was never the opportunity to learn.  There were no chess clubs in my school. I don't remember any discussion about chess, period. Growing up with three sisters, I don't even think I saw anyone play the game.  Chess was never on my radar.  The only time I saw chess depicted on tv it was either being played in a man's den by old men smoking pipes or by a group of boys complete with pocket protectors and taped up glasses.

My child's love of the game has pulled me into the chess world. As I played more, I really started to enjoy the game.  As a grown woman with a busy life I don't have time to dedicate to improving my chess game.  I wonder if I had learned when I was young if I would have excelled...

For now, women's titles, women's championships and, most importantly, women's champions will expose more youngs girls to the game.  With internet chess so readily available it will be easier for all to find a game.  The questions brought up by this discussion about the ability of men and women will  hopefully be answered in the years to come. 

Since I believe that women will hold their own there will come a point when the women's titles will no longer be necessary. 

Ironically, my son was inspired to learn the game of chess thru a school reading assignment on female chessplayer, Irina Krush. :)

The world is changing. However, after reading some of the comments I realize that it's not changing equally in everyone's minds!

I can respect that. I'm an agnostic in all things myself, so I won't make a committal statement either way. All I want is that the mere possibility of there being an inherent difference in skill be recognized. Today's politically correct atmosphere is unfortunately one to stifle even the slightest suggestions that would contradict the accepted "truths". This is why it may seem that I come out strong on occasion.

Actually, I would also be very interested to see the progression of the performance gap over the years. Unfortunately, the FIDE web site archive only goes back two years, and I don't think that's enough for a statistically viable analysis. If you have any suggestions as to where I could find a more comprehensive archive, I would be grateful. I already wrote a program to analyze the data as I did in that other thread I linked to earlier; I might as well put it to good use.