Hi everyone,
Sorry girls, in every game mentioned on this topic, the best women in the world cannot be competitive when playing the best men. I dont know why, but it is true. We need separate leagues and separate titles because of this. If we didn't do this in chess, there would be way fewer titled women players. It is not meant to be an insult to anyone. I think it is meant to encourage everyone.
Their brains aren't like Men's brains...
there are very few women in chess, so until more join, it gets people to play.
I think that the reason there is a bias against women in general is because women in general seem to have... different priorities than men.
Notice how I bolded "in general." As in, generalizing.
There are always exceptions. There is always a gray area.
This is just an observation, but men usually are more competitive in a lot of things. I guess it's all of our testosterone (yeah!). Women tend to be more... agreeable. Maybe it's just the way girls are raised. Maybe it's society. Maybe it's just innate. I don't know, and I honestly don't care.
1.e4 ....1e6 the old "French defense" LOL
I am shocked that Popinjay has not commented yet.
This forum offends me, my mom was a women. lol
Women are only good for one thing, that's right, everything. all arnt i a sweet one. XOXOXOXOXOXOXo
Oh, you know the opinion of every single man in the world?
Did you ask each and every one of them if they like war or not?
(You didn't use 'in general' in your original statement)
Actually chess has been likened to war on many many fronts. The tactics, the strategy, the sacrifice. War has all the things you mention, there is a set of rules, there is a time limit, and there is a winner and a loser.
The other thing I would like you to explain is what you base this statement on: "often for no reason"
From what I can tell, no country has ever gone to war for no reason.
It would seem that your assertions are no better than those that you wish to dispute as being baseless. Why is it ok for you to make such "unsupported" (according to your own critera) statements, yet it is not ok for others?
The strategy and tactics in war are totally different to those in chess, there is no time limit to war, and there are no rules.
Obviously I do not know the opinion of every man in the world.
I never said that no country has ever gone to war without a given reason, I said the people killing each other are doing so without reason, big difference.
The strategy and tactics in war are totally different are they? What are you basing this on? Do you have extensive experience in war and the tactics used? You have been in the armed forces and had some experience with what tactics they use? They don't use distraction techniques in war? They don't sacrifice to gain an advantage? They don't use space and time to strangle the opposition?
No rules? Now you are really showing that you have no idea about this topic. Every battle has rules, every soldier follows a set of rules.
War has a time limit, it might not be as obvious as a chess clock but there are other constraints that impose a time limit.
Yes it is obvious you don't know the opinion of every man in the world. Babs didn't know the curriculum for every single all boys/girls school in the world either.....but that wasn't good enough for you from her, why is it ok for you to make such statements????
"I never said that no country has ever gone to war without a given reason, I said the people killing each other are doing so without reason, big difference"
How are they killing each other without reason? Even if they don't know or understand the reason they are there, they are still fighting the war for that reason.
Anyway, I am not going to continue to argue with you over something you obviously know less than me about (and I know next to nothing about it). The point of my posts was to show you how hypocritical you have been in your treatment of other peoples statements vs your own. You want everyone else to have fully supported comments and yet you want to be able to spout off about anything you like without any real substance behind you. My advice is to pull your head in and stop making an arse of yourself.
By the way I am talking about elementary school. I think that in highschool there is a lot of pressure on girls to the pretty/popular type, and so they would not get into chess.
Here is where you are right Kupov, in my high school I do not know a single girl who knows how to play (i am sure there are some, but none that play reguarly, I know this because I am in the chess club and I think I would have heard about it)
Although there is about 40 boys in my school that I know play chess and about 6 or 7 that play reguarly.
My school has about 1400 people
Why do women get different medals?
because their soooooooooooooo cute. 
EvanVonVan - Very perspicacious observation you've made.
Why thank you sir! My sarcasm-sensor has been a little off lately.
Well I didn't want to say anything too offensive. It was a poor choice of words.
If I take refuge in ambiguity, I assure you that it's quite conscious. -Kingman Brewster Jr.
You would never see Kasparov dressed up like this.
But then again who would want to. LOL
Women as strong as Tiger?!
Ask Annika about that
I didn't think that there were any MEN as strong as Tiger... except Chuck Norris!:)
If you Google search "Chuck Norris getting his butt kicked" you will generate zero results. It just doesn't happen.
Two of the strongest women pre-WW2. Sonja Graf and Vera Menchik. Mrs. Menchik was considered the strongest female player until the advent of the Polgars.
“The first woman ever to play in the British Championship and the first to play in a master tournament, Vera
Menchik made her debut in master chess at Scarborough 1928 when she scored 50%. The following year she
played in Paris and Carlsbad, and it was in Carlsbad that the famous “Vera Menchik Club” was formed. The
invitation to Vera Menchik to compete among such players as Capablanca, Euwe, Tartakower and
Nimzovich was received with amusement by many of the masters. The Viennese master Becker was
particularly scornful, and in the presence of a number of the competitors he suggested that anyone who lost
to Vera Menchik should be granted membership of “Menchik Club” He himself became the first member.
Other famous players who later joined the club were Euwe, Reshevsky, Sultan Khan, Sir George Thomas,
C.H.O’D Alexander, Colle and Yates.”
(From Encyclopedia of Chess” by Anne Sunnucks)
And yes, I believe you could dress like a man in those days and not be a lesbian. Sonja was married in 1947. The pic is, I believe, from the 1930s.
Hmm not sure how I feel about this as far as my pride goes... I guess I'll just exploit this system!
OP: Because it was agreed that women, in order to be encouraged, should have certain privileges that men, on the other hand, should be restricted of, such as what follows: being able to play in a tournament of those exclusively the same sex as oneself -- available to women; not to men. This was justified in that females as a whole performed worse than men in chess.
It was decided that these extra privileges that women have, that men do not, will make things fair.
About the whole, unproven, generalized, likely-to-be exaggerated and completely neglected for males, "discouragement" explanation to account for the lesser general female chess accomplishment -- even if this is completely true, does that mean that the women who are "not discouraged," and, moreover, are as nerdy for chess as most men, should not be required to work as hard as the "left brained" men for a title? (Yes the title is not as good as say "GM," but at least it's easier to have one, period.) It's often said that women might, in general, not be as interested in spending hours problem solving, as men. But what about the women who are very left-brained, like everything about chess? Why should these women have it easier? Are they still at a disadvantage, as is always generalized and presumed?
If as a woman, you're not into the nature of games like chess, then obviously you don't expect to be a pro chess player. But if you are, should your chances really be so much less than those of men, who also are? Well in that case I don't think that question could be answered substantially with referencing sex organs, at least. To say yes would be quite presumptuous -- it would fail to take into account, for example, the obstacles a particular man may happen to face.
I'm all for equality regardless of the discipline but with regard to tennis, it strikes me as extremely unfair that the women earn equal prize money when they only play 2 out of 3 sets while the men play 3 out of 5 sets. I fully support the concept of equal pay for equal work but in tennis women are clearly getting paid much more than the men for their time. To be fair, women should play 3 out of 5 sets or get paid at a rate that is appropriate for the amount of work they do.
lol, Gonnosuke, for some reason I didn't think you would have that opinion (I agree); aren't you, more of a, romantic?
The subject of chess ability and gender is fascinating, controversial and never seems to go away. Check out the posts in a forum I started "Chess, Laws and Sex".
Gee, I didn't know John Regis was a woman.