What is the point of segregating chess by gender?  What are people's thoughts on chess being co-ed all the time?

There are mixed competition tournaments of course. (duh)

But the best female players are no match for the best male players. It's good to have a seperate championship for them, to encourage other females to take up the game. The more the merrier.

ericmittens...

obviously you need to read more on chess... have you ever heard of Judit Polgar? One of the worlds top ranked players. She has mostly only competed in the mens cycles... done quite well and here games have a great slashing tactical style to them. I think you would agree after going over them that she is a world class player.

I believe that there should not be a different world championship for men and women. Chess requires no brawn only brains... both m or f have that in abundance. It would make the chess games overall more rich in content and the money would be combined creating better prize funds for everyone.

2 cents...

Of course I've heard of Judit.

Isn't she the only woman in the top 100?

It is obvious that some physiological/psychological/social factors keep women from competing at the highest levels of chess. I don't claim to know what they are but the numbers don't lie...they are there.

For that reason women should have their own world championship. At least they have a goal to work towards in their professional careers, a goal that may actually be achieved.

It isn't that women are inherently weaker at Chess, but rather that far fewer play Chess, so in any statistical distribution of male vis-a-vis female players, there are likely to be a much greater number of male players at any level. If Chess players were divided 50-50 between the sexes, the number of top rank players would be likely to reflect that split.

The same applies to female mathematicians, physicists, chemists, engineers. After all, in other sports/games where the participants are roughly equal in numbers, and where physical strength is not a major factor, women compete on equal terms e.g show jumping, three-day events.

For more silverware to give away... :)

If there wasn't a separate title for Women's World Champion and, more importantly tournaments with prize money for women only, then I believe a lot less women would be able to take up chess as a profession.

Apart from Judit Polgar, the next strongest woman chess player ever is Humpy Koneru. She is around about 2600 level, and would find it hard to make a living playing chess if it wasn't for the fact that she is a woman.

Here is a great link discussing women and chess and the differences.

 www.goddesschess.com/genderandchess/numbersgame.html

As far as making a living at chess... are you telling me that you would not take a lesson from just about any 2500 + player in the world whether man or female if given the chance? I would find that hard to believe if you said no... Many of the top books for learning chess from opening to endgame have been written by IM's and FM's. You probably have a couple in your library right now. Non category tournaments are won by 2500 and less rated players all the time. Simuls, lectures and all that are conducted at chess clubs throughout the world and those lower rated men and women are giving them at a fee. All professional chess players find it hard to make a living at chess... no matter who they are... and at what level they are at.

2 cents...

LostCauseOne wrote:

 All professional chess players find it hard to make a living at chess... no matter who they are... and at what level they are at.

 That's not true.

People in the world top 10-20 make a very nice living playing in the top tournaments for appearance fees. However, the average grandmaster (2500-2700) has a very difficult task in supporting themselves solely on chess. They either have to teach, write books (as you say), or travel around giving lectures...and even then, unless they are a well known teacher/author it is still very hard for them to make a comfortable living. Soviet players have an easier time at this because they have government sponsorship.

I am saying that if there were not tournaments solely for women, women would have almost no opportunity to win prize money as there are many stronger men competing with them. Of course any IM or GM could walk into a small open tournament and wipe the floor with the players there. Do you know what the prize funds are like for small open tournaments? Here in canada the first prize for the largest tournaments is something like $500!

Women need their own tournaments and championship. Financially and psychologically.

The title of this thread asks why there is a Women's World Championship. That's a fair question and it's been asked over and over.  At one time there was Vera Menchik. While she competed with men, generally with only modest results, she stood a level above all other female competitors. In fact there were only a handful of women on the next level of ability who could even consider competeing against her.  She was the first Women's World Champion.

Today, there are still hardly any women who can compete with men at the highest level. Today those few women have GM titles.  However, the next lower level of ability boasts a much more impressive field of women players - not as many as there are men at that level, but tremendously more than 50-75 years ago.  Something must be going right for the girls.

I rather doubt we'll ever see a woman World Champion - not for lack of talent or for any genetic limitation, but for a general reluctance for women to put that kind of commitment into chess and for the incredible difference in the gender pools sizes.

But I can't understand why that is important. Anyone of any ability can play successfully against others of similar ability.  World Championships, or even ratings, are not the be-all and end-all of chess.  I could even argue that they are relatively unimportant in the chessic scheme of things.  Chess is about people - people playing, people learning, people enjoying themselves.  It some women need women tournaments, and, therefore the logical result - women titles, including the championship title, then why would anyone begrudge them that which most completely facilitates their ability and desire to participate??

Exactly. Correct me if I am wrong, but a woman can compete in the overall World Championship, correct?

Sure, if she qualifies.  There are no gender restrictions.

There have always been distinctions, gender, nationality, even religon.

Name me a female, black, jewish G. M.  YOU GET THE POINT.

stanhope13 wrote:

There have always been distinctions, gender, nationality, even religon.

Name me a female, black, jewish G. M.  YOU GET THE POINT.

Not especially.  What's the point? 

batgirl wrote:

stanhope13 wrote:

There have always been distinctions, gender, nationality, even religon.

Name me a female, black, jewish G. M.  YOU GET THE POINT.

Not especially.  What's the point?

 I don't get the point either

women play chess for their own championship because they are catty and want their own sandbox...they would also like to

change the rules and make the queen taller than the king but they have not yet figured out how to glue a checker to the bottom of the queen...

Ahha. So women have a world championship because women want a world championship. So therefore, its not sexist, so why do we care?

We dont really.

Actually, if you compare the open Championship games from tournaments and matches like San Luis 2005 and Kramnik vs Leko, the women's championshsips are almost always more exciting, with fewer draws and more vicious games, and are more accesible to the public as they don't come close to the strength and depth of the Open Championship.

3 cents...

"the women's championshsips are almost always more exciting, with fewer draws and more vicious games, and are more accesible to the public as they don't come close to the strength and depth of the Open Championship."

I agree totally.  Women tend not to play for draws. And the games tend to be less esoteric and more brawl-ish.