...
... In a competition that is measured in hundredths of a second or centimeters I completely understand having separate medals for men and women. But chess is not so finely judged. If it were then it would make sense to have entirely separate competitions such as we see in the Olympics.
Chess is extremely finely judged! The difference between a master and a grandmaster cannot be discerned by an average player (without a strong engine). There is almost no way to tell the relative strength of players just by glancing at the games. One would have to study the games carefully before coming to any conclusions about the relative strength of anyone +2400.
So this argument that chess is not a contest of extremely small distinctions is just prima facie wrong.
That is one thing I considered while typing my argument. You could add that to excel at the professional level in today's world means making as few as 1 mistake. We're even beginning to see top games (or so I'm told) that hardly even have 1 mistake, and the super GM loses simply due to a passive position!
So I admit I was streching it there. I try to make up for it a bit by going on to say that if the differences in biology do in fact account for such slight differences, then it makes more sense to separate the competition completely and thus actually recognize the fact that chess is so finely judged. To keep men's titles open to women while at the same time given them special titles seems to be a velvet glove form of sexism.
If chess is a battle of the mind--why have separate titles for woman? I understand why we have men's basketball and woman's basketball because they simply can't compete with each other on a physical level. In chess, all those physical differences wouldn't seem to matter.
I appologize in advance if this has been posted before.
Exactly; they shouldn't be there. It's sexist because FIDE doesn't mind rewarding women for lesser accomplishments solely because they're women. Instead they should reward every woman who achieves what, currently the man must achieve, you know, so that it's actually equal, like I thought all humans were supposed to be. Yeah if we exclusively gave all 2600s and above all the attention, then a lot of women wouldn't get that attention, but if they didn't make it to such a high level, then why should they deserve it?
And what's so special about Judit Polgar? The truly neutral way to think of her is that, though she is great, she is just another strong, human, grandmaster, no? But obviously the fact that she is a woman makes it so much better? Isn't that a judgment based on sex?
Well sure, you could rationalize any human accomplishment into something not so grand. Climbing mount Everest is just another mountain.
No, that's actually pretty nice; I feel no need to discriminate against mountains here
But the fact is before Judit no woman had made it that far before... ever. The reasons can be underrepresentation, social, psychological, physical, or something else. The reason doesn't matter, but she was clearly overcoming something. Notice no women since has made it as far as her despite growing participation. You could even say she was before her time, so it is worth remembering.
The problem with this whole paragraph is you assume that what you list are indeed obstacles, and you assume they are very severe. There is absolutely no way you can be so sure. Is it too much to think that someone's willpower to do what they love can overcome such shallow things like this supposed discrimination? Everyone has to overcome something anyway, man or woman!
I'm not at all in favor of discrimination or unequal rights for any group of people, but there are differences between groups of people that make certain accomplishments more difficult.
Ok, but again, how do you know what she had to go through was any worse than what certain men specifically had to go through? How do you know you're not overestimating what she had to go through to the point of being nearly sure? Is it really that bad? Well, maybe, but we don't know, and we also don't know if it's any worse than what a man had to go through. For example, what if we take this prejudice the other way and say that a lot of pressure was put on some GM because he was a male prodigy. Couldn't he complain that he had to deal with the pressure that if he didn't make GM his parents would be mad at him or something? Would that make him exceptionally more worth-remembering?
My point is, the amount of obstacles one can list is endless, and the significance of them can be difficult to confidently, and, most certainly, incontrovertibly, determine, like in this case.
These are good arguments, and I don't disagree. In a perfect world we wouldn't remember Judit. You're correct I do assume that Judit overcame certain obstacles that made her performance worthy of mentioning. As Susan Polgar's quote jokes "I've never beaten a healthy man!" I think the environment these women had to fight against is noteworthy.
I don't think it's fair to say we don't remember the young male prodigy who overcame pressures. We remember and lament how Rubenstien was too poor to make a challenge for the WC. If he had overcome this somehow it would be a great story. Fischer is much more memorable because he overcame the environment he was born into to go on and become world champion.