Why do women have their own niche carved out in the chess world?

One thing I've noticed, there are literally hundreds of male chess players in my university but only around 10 female chess players. 3 out of the top 5 are women including me, this for me is enough proof that women are better than men in chess and it would become more clear if more women start taking up chess.

So if women are stronger than men at chess--in your opinion, at least--then what do you think of women achieving titles like "grandmaster" with lower ratings than men? Do you feel titles like WGM make sense or should they be the same for everybody?

 Its actually possible that women have a natural propensity to be better at chess than men. Women are more manipulative than men by nature on average so maybe it translates into chess, who knows. 

There are many variables that play into it. Not sure what to think when women and men are isolated.

I think all sports should include both men and women imo lmao. Especially with all this feminist liberal babel

I am not entirely convinced you know what an ad hominem is.  Infact in order for an ad hominem to exist it needs to constitute part of an argument, e.g.  Donald Trump would not make a good president because he is a churlish boorish megalomaniac.  Please note that the basis of the argument is using personal characteristics to establish a truth claim, this is an ad hominem.  Donald Trump is a churlish boorish megalomaniac and needs a good slap on the back of the head, is not an ad hominem, its a personal insult.  Now not all references to personal considerations need constitute an ad hominem and infact they may be perfectly valid, e.g. Al Capone would not be a good president of our bank because he has a history of money laundering and is a filthy criminal.  Hopefully you took these considerations into account when you made your evaluation of my text.

As to your point about showmanship I tend to agree.  Infact I think there should be a chess crown and royal jewels including a sceptre and throne which the ladies and mens chess champion get to wear and utilise for state occasions. I would not however reduce it to the tabloid sensationalism of wrestling matches, its fake and phoney and unsavoury to anyone with a modicum of taste and quite boring as it contains no intellectual content.  

If I was chess world champion I would enter a tournament with semi clad ladies throwing flowers on the ground as I arrived on my war elephant surrounded by colourfully turbaned Sikh bodyguards wielding sabres.  I may engage in some trash talk like Muhammed Ali but I would keep it tasteful.  I may read a list of decrees, No French defence, No exchange slav by order of decree! I would denounce Anish Giri and Laurence Trent and anyone else who found my disfavour. 

Please someone reel me in before i get carried away.

W0MEN are g00d in kitchen, MEN usually n0t.    Wi need t0 kreate  a male c0mpetici0n paralel t0 make sandwiches.

Don't wish too hard your dreams are china in your hands!

The part supposed to be "encouraging" would be, as usual, the money.

With a mixed section and a womens section but no mens section, chess is basically setting away some part of the availiable sponsorship and prize money exclusively for women.

Women can earn the money from either prize pool, men only get to fight for the money from one prize pool.

If feminists could, they'd make the whole world work like this.

What does that have to do with titles though? Why do we need titles like WGM in order to have women-only events?

Totally agree

Finally someone dares to speak the truth!

Kudos to Robbie_1969.

What piques my curiosity is why men are so interested in women's titles when those titles affect them not in the least.

There is at least an argument against women's tournaments since they *possibly* funnel money away from open tournaments.  

When one studies the development, realizes the difficulties and appreciates the advancement of women in chess in general and in organized chess as well as the struggle in gaining participation and in reaping rewards, this entire thread takes on a mean-spirited aspect. 

I agree on every word except gorgeous. Female chess is not female tennis, volleyball or golf.

blueemu wrote:

robbie_1969 wrote:

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 someone dares to speak the truth!

Kudos to Robbie_1969.

Judith Polgar, besides being a powerfull GM, is gorgeous, with all due respect  for a married woman.

The Polgar sisters were very pretty in their youth. Sadly too much sitting and mental activities and lack of physical exercises change that.

What struggle in participation and in reaping rewards do women face that men don't ?

I don't doubt that it's hard to qualify for big tournaments or to win big money in chess, but to me this seems to be equally hard on anyone attempting it.

Chess theory is very developed, so training takes up a lot of time and good trainers cost a lot of money - but that is just the same for men and women, no ?

In the end, the person (irrespective of their gender) with the best combination of hard work, natural talent and good coaches will earn that money.

So why would that be more difficult for women ?

there is nothing wrong with a bit of chauvinism, its people that believe their own propaganda that are dangerous.

Feminism is nothing but a fake social construct, this guy who made this thread makes a good point

I'm talking about how women got from there to here.  When comparing groups, as this thread want to do, the most important and most ignored ingredient is participation rate.  Compare Soviet chess to any-other-nation chess in the 1950s.  Women are still so woefully underrepresented that comparisons between genders in chess usually die coming out of the starting gate (except for the good ol' boys slapping each others' backs).  If today, with a historic number of women playing competitively, comparisons are still impossibly skewed, imagine how much more so  it had been and how hollow chess has been due to this absence of female players.  Rewards for women champions, at least in the US, were tokens - a book, some perfume, a "beauty kit"  and a trophy.  At least one US Women's Championship tournament was scrapped/postponed because funds couldn't/wouldn't be made available.  Women were actively encouraged to form their own clubs, either overtly excluded or less overtly discouraged from participating in those clubs inhabited with men. Ladies' Night was a common thing.  Clubs are one of the most significant breeding grounds for successful tournament players and women were pretty much denied that avenue except in a token fashion. In spite of all that, a few ladies made it into the higher level, though, of course, not the highest.  Things began to change in the 1970s (perhaps, ironically, in part because of Fischermania) and women have indeed excelled beyond what participation rates would indicate.  

People here want to argue that women demean themselves or limit themselves by having their own titles and separate contests, but it was actually men who framed that construct.  But, then again, women's tournaments, outside of possibly funneling some cash away from open contests, doesn't affect men in the least.  Women titles do not affect men in the least.  Yet it's men who make a big deal out of it all.  Why is that?