Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

Abolish Women's Chess Titles

Standard memberTigerhouse
Only Chess 13 Oct '09 23:25
  1. S
    Standard memberSwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    2014.05.01
    Joined
    11 Apr '07
    Moves
    92274
    14 Oct '09 00:501 edit
    Originally posted by wormwood
    sometimes I wonder what's the point of having any titles to begin with. would hockey be different if the players were awarded titles like 'grandmaster of hockey'? grandmaster of tennis?

    it's like different color belts in martial arts, a bit childish.



    Daniel: Hey, what kind of belt do you have?

    Miyagi: Canvas. JC Penney, $3.98. You like?
    ...[text shortened]...
    Miyagi: Karate here.

    [points to his belt]
    Miyagi: Karate never here. Understand?
    That movie didn't believe its own message. All that training and imparted wisdom for a tournament that awards a trophy, and damned if the kid didn't win it.
  2. w
    Standard memberwormwood
    If Theres Hell Below
    We're All Gonna Go!
    Joined
    10 Sep '05
    Moves
    10228
    14 Oct '09 00:55
    Originally posted by SwissGambit
    That movie didn't believe its own message. All that training and imparted wisdom for a tournament that awards a trophy, and damned if the kid didn't win it.
    you can blame aristotle for that.
  3. W
    Standard memberWulebgr
    Angler
    River City
    Joined
    08 Dec '04
    Moves
    16907
    15 Oct '09 01:03
    Exactly one woman has been in the top ten. The same has been in the top twenty. Perhaps two have been in the top 100 (I'm not certain on this point--it could be one or three).


    Women's tees in golf are sexist because the top three women golfers can outdrive all but the top fifty men (I made that statistic up, but I'll wager it is close). Separate races for women in distance running are silly. When I took 173rd in my city's top road race, two women finished in front of me (I outkicked #3 after running with her for a mile).


    In other words, it's the WSJ. You cannot really expect them to be rational and realistic on matters of social policy.
  4. F
    Standard memberFabianFnas
    Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    15 Oct '09 08:14
    Originally posted by Tigerhouse
    Just read this article, from the American newspaper the Wall Street Journal, that favors abolishing different titles for women, like the Woman Grandmaster (WGM) title. The argument given is that such titles are inherently sexist, and that women now have greater access to chess and training resources, so the division between men and women players is expect ...[text shortened]... way to soften their disapproval. Fischer and Kasparov certainly had their say on the subject.
    To have a woman title is to say that women are not as good as men, they lack the ability to play chess as men. They are inferiour. I don't think so.

    There are not many black people getting somewhere in chess. So why not have a black world championship? Answer: This is to say the black people are inferior to others. I wouldn't agree to that.

    There are not many gay people getting somewhere in chess. So why not have a gay world championship? Answer: This is to say the gay people are inferior to others. I wouldn't agree to that.

    There are not many left handed people getting somewhere in chess. So why not have a left handed world championship? Answer: This is to say the left handed people are inferior to others. I wouldn't agree to that.

    There are not many communist people getting somewhere in chess. Oh, sorry, I'm wrong here...

    So having championship especially for women is like saying they are inferiour, and noone cares. If I said the same thing about black people, gay people or left handed people - people would surely protest, calling me names and perhaps even harass me of that reason. But if I say the same thing about women, people think that it's alright.

    I say that women can play chess as good as men. Why there are no female world champions yet is beacuse they are fewer than men. And the same goes for black people, gay people, and left handed people as well.
  5. Subscribergreenpawn34
    e4
    Joined
    06 May '08
    Moves
    42492
    15 Oct '09 11:34
    Hi Fabs.

    Agree 100% but that article mentioned there is easy money for
    a good female player so perhaps they like things as they are.

    Oh by the way Clan 285
  6. SubscriberEric Knight
    Alabama
    Joined
    24 Jul '07
    Moves
    109434
    15 Oct '09 14:111 edit
    FabianFnas is spot on. The cynical misogynist's view:

    1. Having women's titles IS an admission of believing that women's minds are inferior to men's in the playing of chess and and an admission of the prejudiced belief that if women's titles were eliminated there would be almost no female chess grandmasters.

    2. Women's minds ARE inferior to men's in the playing of chess and if women's titles were eliminated there WOULD be almost no female chess grandmasters.

    Now, let the flaming begin. 😉
  7. W
    Standard memberWulebgr
    Angler
    River City
    Joined
    08 Dec '04
    Moves
    16907
    15 Oct '09 14:14
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    To have a woman title is to say that women are not as good as men, they lack the ability to play chess as men. They are inferiour. I don't think so.

    There are not many black people getting somewhere in chess. So why not have a black world championship? Answer: This is to say the black people are inferior to others. I wouldn't agree to that.

    There a ...[text shortened]... than men. And the same goes for black people, gay people, and left handed people as well.
    Nonsense. The titles reflect the social conditions that discourage women, not their innate abilities.

    Golf tees are another matter, so the fellow that offered that comparison was obviously confused.
  8. T
    Standard memberTyrannosauruschex
    Mr T
    I pity the fool!
    Joined
    22 Jan '05
    Moves
    22874
    16 Oct '09 20:454 edits
    I have never lost a game to a girl over the board (and unlikely online either - most strong 'women' are just men pretending) but I have had potentailly lost positions in several games and always swindled my way out of it.


    Take this gem of a game from my younger years - probably the closest to losing I have come (apart from a time a girl had mate in one but her flag fell)

    Invert BoardPGNHeaders
  9. F
    Standard memberFabianFnas
    Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    16 Oct '09 20:59
    Originally posted by Wulebgr
    Nonsense. The titles reflect the social conditions that discourage women, not their innate abilities.

    Golf tees are another matter, so the fellow that offered that comparison was obviously confused.
    "The titles reflect the social conditions that discourage women"

    How so? What social condition do women have that men don't have?
    Do you think that their innate abilities make women inferiousr to men in chess?

    Of golf I know nothing.
  10. V
    Standard memberVarenka
    Joined
    21 Sep '05
    Moves
    27507
    16 Oct '09 22:10
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    To have a woman title is to say that women are not as good as men, they lack the ability to play chess as men. They are inferiour. I don't think so.
    Without considering whether females are inferior at chess to males, consider the fact that male and female brains are *not* the same - there are significant differences.

    Given these differences, how much of a coincidence do you then think it would be if these differences still resulted in the exact same chess ability? I think it would be a very big coincidence indeed.

    On that basis, it's very unlikely that females and males have the same chess ability. Sure, we can argue just how much of a difference there is, and which is the superior, but it's not the same level of ability.

    And therefore, I think each sex should be allowed to separately set their own titles. If females have chosen lower standards than males, as opposed to say higher, then so be it; maybe these need to be adjusted. But separate titles there should be.
  11. T
    Standard memberTyrannosauruschex
    Mr T
    I pity the fool!
    Joined
    22 Jan '05
    Moves
    22874
    16 Oct '09 22:19
    I guess that is a fair way of looking at it - in sports the women are not expected to be able to overcome the same obsticles as men.
  12. W
    Standard memberWulebgr
    Angler
    River City
    Joined
    08 Dec '04
    Moves
    16907
    17 Oct '09 00:03
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    "The titles reflect the social conditions that discourage women"

    How so? What social condition do women have that men don't have?
    Do you think that their innate abilities make women inferiousr to men in chess?

    Of golf I know nothing.
    face not have: society has the conditions; women must negotiate their way through them.


    Probably differs from country to country, but in many western cultures, and even more severely in eastern, women are often discouraged at an early age from becoming too involved in certain mental activities--math, science, chess. All this has changed dramatically in the past few decades, but remains an issue. Women's titles have been a factor, however slight, in provoking the changes. At some point in the future, they might have the contrary impact, but I don't think we are there yet.
  13. Standard memberMahout
    London
    Joined
    04 Nov '05
    Moves
    12606
    17 Oct '09 10:20
    Saying women titles should be abolished is patronizing. If the women concerned didn't want the
    title they could decline it.

    We have age banded tournaments when there are under 16's who can hold there own with the
    world top ten - doesn't mean we should abolish under 16 tournaments.

    All the women's title does is to confer a title on someone from a specific pool of players defined by gender in this case. I see little difference between this and say a championship
    defined by an area such as America or Europe or England or Ealing. I'd object if women were
    barred from taking part in some tournaments on account of their gender but as far as I know
    they're not...well except maybe in some countries...but that's another issue.

    It's fair to say the pool of female players is smaller than the pool of male players.
  14. SubscriberEric Knight
    Alabama
    Joined
    24 Jul '07
    Moves
    109434
    17 Oct '09 14:38
    Originally posted by Mahout
    Saying women titles should be abolished is patronizing. If the women concerned didn't want the
    title they could decline it.

    With that logic they should never have abolished Negro League Baseball, since the black men who played in the Negro leagues did so voluntarily.
  15. Standard memberMahout
    London
    Joined
    04 Nov '05
    Moves
    12606
    17 Oct '09 15:37
    Originally posted by Ohforf
    Drawing parallels between an issue to with race and an issue to do with gender is the flimsy
    logic in this instance.
Back to Top
Sign up or Connect to Play Chess

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree