I think this kind of goes back to the an issue in sports that transcends chess. Yes, there are some sports that women could never, on a biological level, be able to compete on the same level as men (football, hockey, etc.) but for many sports, if women were allowed to compete at the same level as men from the beginning, they would rise to the occasion. Additionally, in some sports (soccer, basketball), there are women who more than likely could compete successfully against men. And I'd agree that people clarify the difference between 'World Champion' vs 'Women's World Champion' in order to ensure that potential future women players understand that there is a separation of competition, which is kind of bullshit. Especially when you look at people like the Polgar sisters (https://www.buzzfeed.com/tkingbutler/how-a-child-chess-prodigy-educational-psychologis-2pqys) who I'm assuming could smack any competitor, man or woman.
Why do women have their own niche carved out in the chess world?
I'm going to assume from your post history that you're not trolling. Trolling or not, it's an ignorant post. Considering several women have achieved the title of Grandmaster (not just WGM), obviously women are capable of competing at the highest level. I really can't get over how ignorant your post is. Do you really have no idea what's going on in the world?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_women_of_China
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_rights
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_India#Crimes_against_women
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_the_United_States#Demographics
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/12/world/asia/india-women-challenge/
Pay close attention to the last one as it points out that even women who live in societies where they are equal under the law, still face discrimination. You question is just evidence of how diluted some men are. Why don't you look at the fact that in many countries, women are not given the same opportunities. They don't get to go to school. Many are abandoned or killed. Many are oppressed and victims of horrid crimes through no fault of their own.
So no, women don't have their own titles because (as you underhandedly stated) they're not smart enough to beat men. In many ways men are smarter. And in many ways women are smarter. Women have their own titles because we simply need more women to be involved in things like chess. We need to encourage young girls to learn. We need to give them role models that display the value of intelligence and critical thinking, in a world that tells them their value is based in their appearance.
Whether this is because of genetic differences ( which is why the fastest runners and swimmers, highest jumpers, strongest lifters, ... are men,) or because too few women play the game for us to know their true potential, or whether those who do play aren't as motivated as men to work hard at it ... WE DO NOT KNOW, and, in our present stage of knowledge, anyone that says otherwise is pretending to have some secret source of knowledge that is denied to the rest of us.
Actually, we do know, and the source of this knowledge is available for anyone who wants to read it. Current science tells us that the performance gap is an illusion - when controlled for participation, there is no significant difference in strength between men and women chess players. If fact -- again, this a very small and thus not significant statistical variation - the numbers show that the best women players are slightly better than the best male players.
Bilalić, M., Smallbone, K., McLeod, P., & Gobet, F. (2009). Why are (the best) women so good at chess? Participation rates and gender differences in intellectual domains. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 276(1659), 1161–1165. http://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2008.1576
Chabris, C., & Glickman, M. (2007). Sex differences in intellectual performance: Analysis of a large cohort of competitive chess players. Psychological science., 17(12), 1040–6. Retrieved from
I don't understand why this even has to be a topic of debate. Women are better than men at almost everything and chess is no exception as rightly stated by Anna.
All the top players in my college are girls and they beat the crap out of me every time.
If the numbers showed that it would mean that Judit Polgar is stronger than Kasparov, Carlsen, ...
??
Not exactly, Modest - it's a statistical average of the top players, not a one to one comparison. These are basically a form of population studies, looking at groups rather than individuals. The paper is really interesting read - check it out. 
Not exactly, Modest - it's a statistical average of the top players, not a one to one comparison. These are basically a form of population studies, looking at groups rather than individuals. The paper is really interesting read - check it out.
So is it saying that if equal numbers of men and women played, and neither group was favoured in any way, that the very strongest players would be women?
It is very convenient for such a conclusion that it is untestable.
The most noticeable thing to me about Robbie's video, was how many moves one lady played on a peice down. That's quite typical of the fighting nature of women's chess. The first person that pointed that out to me was Yelena Dembo, who I get regular chess lessons from.
They have their own grandmasters and their own World Championship. Why do we need WGMs? Can they not just become GMs? And why do we need a Women's World Championship? Can they not just go after the real World Championship?
Is the reason, quite frankly, that even the best of them are not strong enough to compete with the best men so they are given their own arena within which they can be competitive? Or is there something else to it that I'm missing?
its because men are ugly, smelly, aggressive, egotistical and have the personal hygiene of a mountain goat. Lady players by contrast are gorgeous, modest in victory and graceful in defeat normally.
Finally somebody gets it.
The most noticeable thing to me about Robbie's video, was how many moves one lady played on a peice down. That's quite typical of the fighting nature of women's chess. The first person that pointed that out to me was Yelena Dembo, who I get regular chess lessons from.
Yelena Dembo, woa respect!
The most noticeable thing to me about Robbie's video, was how many moves one lady played on a peice down. That's quite typical of the fighting nature of women's chess. The first person that pointed that out to me was Yelena Dembo, who I get regular chess lessons from.
I think that in chess people often give up too easily. Especially at lower levels, playing a piece down does not necessarily spell doom. I've played plenty of games where I was a piece down and my opponent later blundered in a way that allowed me to go on to win (and vice versa).
For most players (the average player), losing a knight or a bishop shouldn't automatically mean that you quit.
its because men are ugly, smelly, aggressive, egotistical and have the personal hygiene of a mountain goat. Lady players by contrast are gorgeous, modest in victory and graceful in defeat normally.
Finally somebody gets it.
An women are not obese, ugly, and smell bad in your country?
Ah, I see someone else gets it now.
Not exactly, Modest - it's a statistical average of the top players, not a one to one comparison. These are basically a form of population studies, looking at groups rather than individuals. The paper is really interesting read - check it out.
So is it saying...
Dude, read. It's not that hard.
Not exactly, Modest - it's a statistical average of the top players, not a one to one comparison. These are basically a form of population studies, looking at groups rather than individuals. The paper is really interesting read - check it out.
So is it saying that if equal numbers of men and women played, and neither group was favoured in any way, that the very strongest players would be women?
It is very convenient for such a conclusion that it is untestable.
No - as I point out very clearly, it's a statistically insignificant difference. It is saying that if equal numbers of men and women played chess, you would see the similar performance in each group. Performance so similar as to be able to call it 'the same'.
It just an amusing little bit of fluff in the context of this conversation that the statistically insignificant difference, at the highest levels, favors the women's side.
I do think that the WIM/WGM/WFM/WCM titles are silly, and progressively sillier as the requirements get lower. Why do we have to "attract women to the game" in an artificial way. Isn't the game itself attractive enough? No-one is fooled by the titles. At least no-one that plays chess is fooled. We know that the entry level for WGM is "only" the same as for the FM (Fide master) title, i.e. FIDE: 2300. So why a separate and more prestigious title for women? What is wrong with women simply earning the FIDE master title? It might be a long way from being a grandmaster, but it is still a high standard of chess and a very admirable achievement.
Here are the other equivalences:
WIM = CM (Candidate Master) = FIDE 2200+
WFM = 2100+
WCM = 2000+
Come off it FIDE. 2000 is no more than a strong club player. 2100 is respectably strong by all ordinary standards, but it is still weak, weak, weak by IM and GM standards. Both are a very long way from "mastering" chess.
Some national associations have gone even further in introducing titles for relatively weak players. The ECF (English CHess Federation) has REgional Master, Country Master, Club master, Team Master adn Chess Maestro titles for anyone needing an ego boost.
The Club Master title can be claimed by anyone whose rating hits ECF 145. That is only mid-1700's on most Elo-based scales. That is not any kind of Master. It gets ridiculous at the Chess Maestro level. It is ECF 95 which equates to roughly FIDE 1350. I am sorry to break the bad news, but whatever the ECF's certificate might say, at an ECF rating of 95 you are not a Maestro. You are a Novice!
Your comments about the titles are along the same lines of what I was thinking. Why give them a grandmaster title if they are only FM strength? Why not just give them the title of FM? And then IM and then, if they get there, GM? I'd think that any female titled player, if they get to WGM, they really know that in fact they are an FM. That's perfectly respectable, but it's not a grandmaster.
Regarding the English titles that you mentioned, that's pretty wild. So basically they have a title for everything. If you possess even a modicum of skill you get a title. Weird. They've rendered their titles meaningless.
The context if the discussion is why women chess players have a niche of their own and one of the reason proffered was that ladies are more polite and mannerly as opposed to men who are rather more aggressive and in fact do not take defeat that well, generally. This video was a demonstration of the friendliness of ladies chess, now it is a rather tedious affair having to point these things out to you and it would be rather less tedious if you engaged your mind and thought about things prior to positing instead of asking questions which for the most part are self evident to anyone with two brain cells and a functioning synapse.
Wow, what's up with the ad hominem?
In any case, it's funny you talk about how aggressive men are etc when what I see in the chess world is far too much forced politeness and not enough emotion. I'd like to see more emotion and more showmanship.
Quite frankly, if the chess world wants to produce a real star that transcends the cloistered walls of professional chess then someone needs to employ some pro-wrestling tactics to hype things up. Bobby Fischer's antics are perhaps as big of a reason for his notoriety as his chess skills were. Someone at the top needs to get good on the mic and promote both himself and the sport.
Why do men have their own niche carved out in the chess world? @_@
It's simple: They don't.
I'm going to assume from your post history that you're not trolling. Trolling or not, it's an ignorant post. Considering several women have achieved the title of Grandmaster (not just WGM), obviously women are capable of competing at the highest level. I really can't get over how ignorant your post is. Do you really have no idea what's going on in the world?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_women_of_China
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_rights
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_India#Crimes_against_women
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_the_United_States#Demographics
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/12/world/asia/india-women-challenge/
Pay close attention to the last one as it points out that even women who live in societies where they are equal under the law, still face discrimination. You question is just evidence of how diluted some men are. Why don't you look at the fact that in many countries, women are not given the same opportunities. They don't get to go to school. Many are abandoned or killed. Many are oppressed and victims of horrid crimes through no fault of their own.
So no, women don't have their own titles because (as you underhandedly stated) they're not smart enough to beat men. In many ways men are smarter. And in many ways women are smarter. Women have their own titles because we simply need more women to be involved in things like chess. We need to encourage young girls to learn. We need to give them role models that display the value of intelligence and critical thinking, in a world that tells them their value is based in their appearance.
I'm not sure your argument makes sense. Women need their own titles because this somehow encourages other women to pick up chess?
Let's say, hypothetically, that's true. Then why change the rating levels? Why not just call them "Woman Grandmasters" but keep the requirements for achieving the title of Grandmaster the same? The only answer I can think of is that, by renaming FIDE Master to Woman Grandmaster for females, it makes a grandmaster title easier to get and maybe this would be encouraging to some women. But is that really the way the situation should be handled?
Why do men have their own niche carved out in the chess world? @_@