Why do women get different medals? WGM or simply GM?

Stereotypes matter, but I think they shouldn't. Maybe it is just inevitable that it will impact your performance, but in some ways I think it is simply irrational to think that if you have a 2000 rating and you are a woman, that you have less of a chance against a man with a 2000 rating. And that example implies that the whole thing is just so specific to the individual -- how the top 15 is doing has nothing to do with any amateur chess player.

Again, maybe this is just in our genes, to react to stereotypes a certain way inevitably, but I am more optimistic and feel like it can't be right that we are truly doomed to such an irrational behavior. We are able to fight most irrational behaviors with some work; why not one more. Surely there is one woman out there who is not affected -- I don't think it is impossible to be largely unaffected; maybe it's rare to be, but it's hard for me to believe it's impossible.

"So, constant expectations that you'll suck at, for example, chess, due to your gender is quite likely to actually impact performance."

Well, ok, but I would argue women shouldn't expect to suck solely due to their gender despite no female becoming world champion.

Well, I've had unwanted behaviors go away due to rationalization in the past, at least I would think so. Indeed rationalization has helped me at times. It allows you to realize what seems like a problem, isn't a problem, thus putting you at peace. "It just doesn't work like that." I find it hard to believe, that's all. And I've learned plenty about psychology, but I still think the basing of such a strong assumption is iffy. Certainly rationalization can fail, but you can't use that premise to conclude that therefore rationalization can't succeed.

waffllemaster wrote:

...  And differences due to gender I suspect would be so small as to be statistically negligible...

-----

Nope. I suppose if the Polgar sisters would have been brothers, one of them would certainly had become world champion years ago. Probably Jude :-) I doubt if Kasparov would have had a chance in a match.

Men are smarter than women, and less women play chess. It is actually proven that after age 14, boys are likely to be smarter than their female counterparts, it's not sexist, it's life! It would only make sense for a women playing chess to have to do less, just shows how our society caters to make girls lives easier. It sickens me.

The reason stems from as far back as the Stone-Age.  In that era, chess pieces were carved from stone and were very heavy. The women couldn't lift them as easily as men, tired out, and resigned usually before the 6th move.  Ever since then, men have dominated the sport.  Read your history!

Something that has bothered me about chess is the distinction between WGM and GM.  To have two different titles implies difference, and in a game of the mind this implies a difference of the mind, hence skill.

Interestingly enough, men and women have different leagues in billiards, bowling, and golf.  I'm sure there are plenty of women as strong, physically, as Tiger Woods.  Bowling and especially billiards seem within women's grasp as well.

Any ideas on why there is this distinction, even in chess?  Shouldn't women simply be called Grandmasters?

look at chess history.fischer once said he is ready to give a knight to every woman and beat her.there was a huge gap between men and women.and still there is an obvious gap.how many female players can compete with men in super tournaments?we all know pulgar is the best female chessplayer in history and the only one with a rating +2700 but finished 6th among nine players recently in london chess classic and Hou finished 11th tata steel. Pulgar has never played in women chesschampionship because she knows this title isnot worthy for her.and i also know about Menchik who played regularly without success in men tournaments before second world war.look at the rating.how many women do you find in top 200?