People keep sending me these links, so here.
WSJ on abolishing women's titles. That's something I've been ranting in favor of for so long I don't see the point of linking to someone else talking about it. But it's a tidy summary of the arguments and how the existence of women's titles can be perceived from outside the chess world. That is, as sexist and idiotic affirmative action that does little more than formalize low expectations. Same goes for women-only professional events, though at least that's a direct cash subsidy to promote women in the game, which isn't a bad idea in and of itself, just poor implementation. Every time Hou Yifan is the top seed an angel loses its wings.
On a somewhat related note, Anna Zatonskih just destroyed the rest of the field in the US women's championship with 8.5/9 to take her second consecutive and third title overall.
And this NY Times video with NY Yankees manager Joe Girardi talking, and playing, chess. Ooh, chess as a sports metaphor. So painful. Just give thanks they don't give the game score. It sounds atrocious. On baseball, it's always interested me that it doesn't have any sort of clock. Somehow I find that cool, though I don't really enjoy watching it much anymore. "Five minutes of action crammed into three hours" is how I remember hearing baseball described. It's all about tension.
Cute baseball quote. I've heard it used in regards to Wagner's Ring Cycle. "Thirty minutes of great music spread across five hours!"
My father, who loved basketball and even played a lot of it in his youth despite standing just 5'6, used to say to me, "I can't enjoy baseball. It's too slow."
I never really understood what he meant. I was a huge baseball fan. (Hmm, maybe that helps explain why my blitz ratings have always been 300-500 points lower than my "slow chess" ratings. "Old man, you can't cut it any more," the online-blitz lumpen say - when they aren't spouting some version of "Dirty Jew!" But they're wrong - I could NEVER cut it at speed chess. Even when I was 15.)
Women's Chess - Bobby said it best!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdA7I9nPhSU
Perhaps when Bobby was talking about the women chess players he knew about, most of his statements about their chess playing abilities were fairly accurate. I doubt he would say such things now or offer someone like Judit Polgar knight odds. Fischer's views back then were definitely very conventional 1950s (though his opinion that women didn't know to cook seems strange), and the 1960s movements were probably quite alien to him.
'Cute baseball quote. I've heard it used in regards to Wagner's Ring Cycle. "Thirty minutes of great music spread across five hours!"'
Try 15 to 20 hours.
Well... baseball is not only what you describe, but there is tension after each pitch. As a former pitcher, I can attest to this. The game situation changes on every single pitch and there are so many possibilities on what do... what pitch to call, where to place the fielders, the psychological battles of managers, the pitch count, the lineup changes, the game unfolding, etc. It's a complete game and it's beautiful.
I explained it to my neighbor who is a football fanatic and it went completely over his head. He had no idea that baseball had so much going on. He didn't know the subtleties. He is like many Americans who are highlight obsessed which is why international football (soccer) is not followed widely. They only look at the scoring. It is also why many people think chess is boring.
Oh... I think women's titles should be phased out as I do automatic titles at zonals. The latter encourage mediocrity when players get IM and FM titles in weak fields. Titles should only be received after the norm and rating requirements are met. I do believe there should be some consideration for those who earn more norms than required. I know many players who get five or six IM norms before they get the title.
besides the fact that fischer doesn't say much these days (rest his weary soul), you should never underestimate his famed ability to say crazy shiz at the drop of a hat. he, hitler, and rush limbo coulda had a great show together.
"But it's a tidy summary of the arguments and how the existence of women's titles can be perceived from outside the chess world. That is, as sexist and idiotic affirmative action that does little more than formalize low expectations. Same goes for women-only professional events, though at least that's a direct cash subsidy to promote women in the game, which isn't a bad idea in and of itself, just poor implementation." Mig
Agreed except for the abolition of "women-only professional events". Why? As you say "that's a direct cash subsidy to promote women in the game, which isn't a bad idea in and of itself". It's the same thing as saying junior events should be abolished.
"Well... baseball is not only what you describe, but there is tension after each pitch. As a former pitcher, I can attest to this."
I'm a former pitcher and baseball is not a sport. It's a game played by players. Why not? You can be a good pro baseball player and not have good conditioning. Athletes play sports and have good conditioning.
There is a superior version of the game, its called Cricket.
Such funny comments (as also that famous Allen quote about Poland) only show in great fashion how incult people are about classical music in general and Wagner in particular. End of OT, i think Mig is completely right with regards to women chess, it's only hurting them. How can someone grow stronger if not playing the strongest possible opposition? But the most important thing is in my view about expectations: if it's ok only to beat people between 2400-2600 to be the best, your "best" title doesn't mean a lot. Also, see who the strongest female is and how she achieved it. Just with Judit Polgar's career (not intending it's finished, i would like to see her playing much more) one can cast enormous doubts about how women chess is organized.
"I do believe there should be some consideration for those who earn more norms than required. I know many players who get five or six IM norms before they get the title."
Why do you think so? What would be the reason for having that many norms before getting the title? Barring odd cases (federations failing to do the paperwork and paying the required fee), it would be not having a [one-time] rating higher than 2400. Not meaning to insult any of your friends or acquaintances - feel free to correct me if there are other reasons - but this would make them weaker rather than stronger players.
As a matter of fact, most titled players will score "additional norms" after getting the title - how many GM norms did current top30 players obtain in the course of their careers? ,:) But obviously this isn't even worthwhile mentioning, or only in jest: At one occasion, it was noticed that Ivanchuk (in a, for him, VERY bad event) still made enough points for an IM norm.
One thing that has not been mentioned yet is the sexist practice of awarding women the WGM title but not allowing men to hold the WGM title.
While women are allowed to be WIM, WGM, IM and GM, men are not allowed to hold the former two titles.
That sucks.
Men of the world, unite against such obvious sexism.
While it is my opinion that the W-titles should be abolished, I think as long as there is no (or maybe one) female player who can compete on the highest level, there should still be women championships, just like in about every other sport as well.
There is nothing sexist about having a women-only championship.
The best revenge for Mig's ignorance about women and women's chess will come very slowly, as he watches his daughter grow up. Then he will realize that equality in everything is not so easy to achieve.
I'm no sexist pig, and anyone with any title would cream me, but when I was younger I honestly thought the "W" stood for "Weak".
some people might say there's a better game than chess, it's called "Go" but I wouldn't agree with that statement either.
Just ask Svidler...
Could not agree more. It would be sexist to disallow women entering events--but not to allow them their own. I think the junior events was an astute parallel.
It looks like when nobody responds to your comment, your solution to being ignored is to respond to your own comment.
"Every time Hou Yifan is the top seed an angel loses its wings."
Didn't get this. Somebody enlighten me please?
The entire Ring lasts about 15 hours, not 5.
The reason there are women’s GM titles is because if there was only one GM title, then the fear was that very few women would get it and people would feel bad. So, to make people feel good, the women’s titles were invented, which gave a “GM” title to lots of women who could then be described in the media as “GM” and everyone would feel so good about that.
You see, FIDE did not want to be perceived as sexist by having just a pitifully small number of women GMs. Solution? Invent a watered-down “GM” title that only women could get, and that the non-chess playing public could be duped into thinking how wonderful it is that so many women can be GMs!
I have played many OTB games against women, and they have beaten me just as much as everyone else. Just as much as little kids have beaten me, or people with dark skin, or people in wheelchairs, or people wearing turbans, or just as much as any grouping of human beings that you can imagine. But only women have needed to be propped up with fake credentials.
If I was a woman, I would say take your fake title, fold it into a pointy shape, remove your clothes, and sit on it.
Women's titles may not make much sense, but they are not at all affirmative action. Affirmative action would be to give them IM and GM titles to women who do not meet the requirements but you lower the standard for them because women are "under-represented" in the IM, GM club.
In the movie It's A Wonderful Life, an angel must "earn" its wings, through some good deed. A quote from a little girl in the movie is "every time a bell rings, an angel gets its wings" or something like that. This has become a cliche in America, especially in Southern Baptist fundamentalist conversations.
So when Hou is the top seed in a tournament, Mig is assuming it is a woman's tournament and Hou is not doing herself any favors, and Hou's guardian angel is not earning its wings, or whatever. It is very convoluted to make a negative version, losing rather than earning its wings, just for a joke, but that's the best explan I can give you.
When will Mig comment on Carlsen's withdrawal from the ETCC? Has he been muzzled?
Why not lower the standards for everyone? Wouldn't more women get the GM title that way?
It's all a big crock of feeze.
Carlsen showed that he was very self-centered. Something he must have recently learned?
And maybe if he wants to become world champion, that's the way to go, according to his Boss.
I can think of one player in particular who just scored his 4th IM norm. The problem was his first IM norm happened 15 years ago... the organizers have died and there is no paperwork to confirm his norm with FIDE. So he had to score a 4th one to replace this 1st one.
The biological fact is, that intelligence is largely genetic. And the male Y-chromosome results in a much wider spectrum of variability combined to the female XX combination.
The biological outcome is, that most of the truly dumb people are men, and most of the mathematical geniuses are men. At the highest end of the scale males outnumber females around 12 to 1 (nevermind the Harvard President Lawrence Summers was forced to resign from his post in 2006 for suggesting as much. He was right of course. The variability theory is firmly established.). The cultural explanation is weak in comparison in modern western world, although it does evidently play some role.
Also, interests and personality, are partly biological, no matter what the surrounding culture is like. For biological reasons, chess will always appeal more to boys than girls.
The dissolvement of women chess, women chess titles and women chess competitions would be a huge disservice to chess. You would at maximum have two or three professional female chessplayers. Further discouraging females to take up the game seriously.
The current system gives a living and exposure to quite a few of them in comparison.
That's a crackpot punitive attitude whose envious and laughable logic was dead on arrival decades ago. A level of game theory is present in every sport: not all games are pro sports but all pro sports are games, including the the sport of professional baseball. Not all athletes have good conditioning but they all play sports, including the sport of professional baseball. The observation of a lower level of athleticism in comparison to other sports is not a call to play Knee-Jerk God. If I dislike any single component of a sport, I don't strip its designation. If the athleticism bothers you, that's fine. It just may not be your kinda sport.
Anyway, Mig's quote "five minutes of action over three hours" is close to strictly true. An average ML baseball game by measurement of actual live-ball action usually clocks somewhere between 10 and 12 minutes. And I don't believe tension is the hook -- there's tension everywhere. Baseball is both pro sport and pastoral, associative in equal measure of literature, mathematics and musical phrasing, with the official rules allowing the possibility of a game without end. The hook must be in there somewhere.
"The dissolvement of women chess, women chess titles and women chess competitions would be a huge disservice to chess. You would at maximum have two or three professional female chessplayers. Further discouraging females to take up the game seriously."
Apart from Judit Polgar all women chessplayers are far, far from the top 100, and forcing Kosintsevas and Muzychuks to compete with Anand and Topalov for invitations and prize money would quickly make chess a men only game except on amateur level.
I'm pretty sure that I understand all of your post and you are probably right. I wonder, though, what the correlation is between IQ and chess strength potential. I.e., Does one need a certain IQ to ever be able to reach a certain rating?
Every time a joke has to be explained in two paragraphs, an angel loses its wings :)
Sure, divide your rating by 15 to get your IQ.
Hmmm, sounds very scientific! :)
That's perfect, thanks a lot!
"While it is my opinion that the W-titles should be abolished, I think as long as there is no (or maybe one) female player who can compete on the highest level, there should still be women championships, just like in about every other sport as well. There is nothing sexist about having a women-only championship."
You took the words right out of my mouth. Every other sport does it. Does greater physical strength make men better billiards players than woman? No, but they have separate tournaments.
Question: If Hou Yifan is the top seed and she defeats a Petroff, does nothing happen or does one angel lose his/her wings while another gains wings?
It only loses one wing and flies in tight little circles.
My memory isn't what it once was but I believe what I'm about to write is accurate.
In the 70's someone put a stopwatch on a baseball game. (I remember it being between the Phillies and the Cubs and lasting just under three hours.) The stopwatch was started every time the ball was in play and stopped as soon as it wasn't. A ball is in play when the pitcher begins his wind up and, if it isn't hit, generally ends when the catcher catches it. (Of course there are exceptions -- base-stealing, pick-off throws, etc.). The total time elapsed on the stopwatch from the beginning of the game to the end was eight and a half minutes.
Chess is not any better than that. Start the stopwatch when a player touches a piece to move it, and stop the stopwatch when he presses his clock after his move has been made. That would be pretty slow, right? Even slower than baseball.
"There is a superior version of the game, its called Cricket."
And?
That is the most ridiculous assessment I've heard. OK... according to that experiment, football action only begins when the quarterback gets a snap and the play is whistled dead. How many minutes of action does football have? It would similar (or even less) to what you cited for baseball. That is a flawed experiment.
Complaining about sports or stating that one is better than the other is just plain ignorance , like saying that classical music is better than punk rock , only John Dalton had a valid reason for hating the color diversity.
"Zatonskih's performance rating at the US Women's Championship was 2765. I think she could compete with the top 40 US men. The #5 woman in the world 2007 (performance rating of 2774) & 2009 European Champion IM Tatiana Kosintseva is slightly higher rated than Ray Robson, but with their different levels of tournament experience I would never pick him to beat her in a pressure packed 1 on 1 multi-game match. I think she could compete with the top 25 US men. These women are legit. Why do they have to compete against men to prove it?
To prove it.
IM Tatiana Kosintseva 2539 beats GM Vadim Milov 2669 in the first link and GM Gabriel Sargissian 2658 in the second link.
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1535875
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1444667
There are several women that compete occasionally in European open tournaments (against the men) - Stefanova, for one, often does quite well. She's rated just over 2500 or so.
IM Tatiana Kosintseva 2539 also beat GM Evgeny Romanov 2576 at the same Aeroflot Open 2009 where she beat GM Vadim Milov 2669.
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1535952
okay, I know magnus and the carlsen family seem very nice, the situation is being discussed peacefully, but it would be interesting to see someone saying how unprofessional carlsen's decision to withdraw ETC is... he knew the dates beforehand and yet agreed to it. now, 8 days before, he decides its not suitable anymore... I'm shocked with magnus behavior, yet very disapointed with the regular "2 weights, 2 measures" treatment press uses, which is not being an exception here...
Daaim, how would you do it?
You have a point , indeed.
Daim "The Black Racist" Shabazz writes:
"He is like many Americans who are highlight obsessed which is why international football (soccer) is not followed widely. They only look at the scoring. It is also why many people think chess is boring."
I never noticed how thoughtful those incredibly brilliant Africans were while following the soccer ball...no wonder their tribes are so advanced today.
It must be a genetic thing...
Her performance rating was not 2765 but 2817
Irv,
Way out of order.
I don't see why there is this opposition to WIM or WGM titles.
There must be confusion over the meaning of the titles -- a WIM is not an IM. A WGM is not a GM.
The requirements are lower -- thus the titles are intermediate titles.
Perhaps FIDE would be well advised to simply make some intermediate titles along the lines of:
FM (for everyone)
Candidate IM (old WIM)
IM
Candidate GM (old WGM)
GM
They could expand this with some version of "super GM" to recognize the inflation/expansion of the pro player pool.
This would eliminate confusion over what these title represent (and remove the animus of some male players who could qualify for these lesser titles but otherwise feel locked out of the regular IM/GM titles.
I don't think it is a bad idea to have a more "graded" or gradual distribution of titles.
But then I also don't think it is a bad thing to have some women's titles per se.
A national woman's championship is helpful, just as woman's world title is helpful.
A national junior championship (or multiple versions of it -- as USCF has) is helpful. IMHO it is actually more helpful to have a grade championship at a national level (which USCF has) vs. the world youth events that FIDE runs. The idea of "world 12 yr old champion" just doesn't do anything for me -- and awarding titles at such events does cheapen them.
Titles tend to serve a marketing function in sports like chess -- or entertainment like wrestling.
Here is a counter-example (partly in jest). Pat Patterson was the first "intercontinental" wrestling champion. The intercontinental title was designed as a lesser title to promote players who could not reasonably carry the title of heavyweight champion.
In chess -- it is certainly OK to have players (whether female or not) of a certain minimum level with intermediate titles. In fact, frankly, this is an area of some marketing deficit.
There should be tournaments designes around these titles -- rather than having the titles be an end-product of such play.
An all IM tourney could produce the "world IM champion" or some such.
An all WIM tourney could produce the "world WIM champion".
Note: It is very important that one not automatically get higher titles from such events -- after all, some IM must win, and it is not true that being that (perhaps lucky) winner means there is a strength increase.
Without being too personal about it -- the new US women's champion had an amazing score. An amazing performance rating. But I would hesitate to draw conclusions from that result ... in part because of the limited/restricted pool (i.e. gender-limited) tourney.
An example: I have 100 coins. I run a coin-flipping tourney. One (or more) coins will inevitably have an amazing streak of consecutive heads (or tails). That doesn't mean the coins are not all equivalent -- it is an artifact of the tourney.
This is similar to class sections of swisses where some lucky 2000 player must have an amazing result.
If you run a restricted tourney -- somebody is going to win (and overachieve).
Thus, I'd like to see more restricted tourneys (not fewer)...but I'd like to see more realistic assessments of the results, too.
If you want to promote IMs...run IM tourneys.
If you want to promote candidate IMs, run candidate IMs.
There is nothing wrong with applauding 2300 or 2400 level performances.
There is nothing wrong with promoting 2000 level performances at local clubs, either.
The point is to promote -- not denigrate.
Hmm, (sounds like) lots of men who want women titles abolished. What do the women say?
I don't have problems with a WGM title or womens only tournaments. It's not affirmative action (they're not getting a GM title for lower performance), just an extra encourgament for women.
Chessvibes agrees, but I found 3 other sites with different numbers. I don't know who's right.
Click on the WSJ article... it quotes several women arguing the abolishment of the female titles including Irina Krush and Jennifer Shahade.
@Onischuk fan... just do the math yourself at 7.5/8 she had EXACTLY 2800 performance rating... it would drop 35 pts by winning your last round? Of course it went up.
Chessvibes took all information from (quote) "the wonderful Official website". Nothing wrong with that, maybe a bit odd that credit is given only at the very bottom of the report "by Peter Doggers".
The official site mentions both USCF and FIDE ratings - as nearly always the USCF ratings are higher: generally ~30 points, but there is a whopping 199 points difference for tailender Yun Fan (USCF 2134, FIDE 1935). The Chessvibes tournament table gives USCF ratings, most likely also used to calculate TPRs.
When will (all) Americans realize this problem or bias? It was also used to claim that the Men's (or open) US championship was stronger than it actually was.
Concerning some other posts: Yes some of the strongest women do play "male" events, not only opens BTW - Corus B or at least C also has some women in the field, Stefanova recently played the Inventi tournament in Antwerp, Belgium. Those women can beat at least subtop (<2700) men, accordingly they also succeed in obtaining 'male' IM or GM titles, but these may be confused with the W[eak]GM or WIM titles. Nice quip BTW from chesshire cat - probably true and otherwise very well made up. So IMO it would be an argument for rather than against abolishing separate titles for women.
Why bother with these WIM and WGM titles?
I quite like the American titles and divisions-Expert and Senior Master, Class A etc. At first i thought it was a bit silly to have all these but then I realized it gives weaker players an interesting goal, to achieve the next title or class- good motivation for the real amateurs especially (less than 2000). More than likely some like to boast about it to their buddies, but let's not go there.Maybe something similar should be used internationally, based on rating rather than norms, while not doing away with the IM and GM titles as such. It would also deal with this silliness of having GMs whose rating has dropped getting an invite before a stronger IM who just hasn't achieved the title yet. One could reattain GM status by maintaining a certain rating. Also interesting would be a title above GM, cos now you can have a 2450 GM and a 2800 GM, which is a little odd really.
Irv,
I have to agree with Hardy Berger.
Life is not fair..seriously though i think people are willing to ''forgive'' him that because of the bigger picture...as he has crossed 2800 (liverating)and is being touted as a future world champion, everyone is looking forward to the Tal memorial..it has the potential of being a defining moment with the big guns out to play. No body wants excuses, let everyone be as ready as they want. Also i don't think he knew he would come as a ''2800'' gm:-)
Yes, lrv added to my list of trolls to be ignored, with a special sicko warning.
I have no problem with the titles , but i would abolish women´s only tournaments , IMO they should not continue to play in separate events .
Any female players out there care to comment?
Peter Ballard, you may be interested in finding one woman's voice on my column on this piece at chessvibes.com
Arne -
I noticed 3 links listed at the end of that article. One was for chess, one was for "sexy thongs" and the third was for "beautiful women" in Costa Rica.
Does chessvibes get any money for hawking "sexy thongs" and "beautiful women"?
You can answer yes or no.
I get different "Ads by Google" - one chessic one, one for the perfect Golf Swing (huh?) and one about "knappe jongens"[handsome boys]. Google can certainly find out that I have a Dutch IP address, the rest is just (at most slightly educated) guessing.
Chessvibes might earn some money allowing this "service" - why not? Their own chessic content is for free, and only after your comment I even noticed the advertisements. But I don't think they can control the third-party content in any way.
Are you Arne?
No, but he may not have the time to answer your enquiry.
Feel free to reply, and why not write a comment in the "Kasparov on CNN" thread to make it to the top of all +- current topics?
"No, but he may not have the time to answer your enquiry."
Maybe after he gets finished counting his money from the sexy thongs, beautiful women, and handsome boys links.
You seem to like the chessvibes site. Usually, you don't like me or even read my posts. If I happened to have touched a nerve and got you irritated, I'm sorry. Go back to chessvibes.
Luke, of course Google ads are there to generate money so people like you can watch it for free :) But as you probably know we don't get to choose the subjects. It's a common problem (ads for creation websites on evolution blogs, etc) and I'm sure most people (including women) can appreciate the irony.
Arne -
Thank you very much for your reply. I did not know that you cannot block out any of the google ad subjects, even if they may be offensive (racist, Nazi, porn, etc.)
Thanks again for the information.
you're missing an essential point that if FIDE ratings were used Fan's would be 2100 for the tournament instead of 1935. A protectionist rating rule and IM possible contention rule thrown in.
Luke, I'm sure those subjects you mention are not part of Google's advertisement policy, but there will always be borderline cases like the ones you mention. Still, I don't see what's particularly wrong with 'beautiful women'. Personally, I prefer them to ugly ones :-)
Nothing wrong with beautiful women. Or chess, or thongs. Combine the three and get on TV!
There are no ugly women, just ones wearing the wrong facial make-up.
Among other chess topics, woman only tournaments were discussed recently at radio KMOX, with Shahade, Zatonskih et al.
http://www.kmox.com/topic/play_window.php?audioType=Episode&audioId=4094740
"I quite like the American titles and divisions-Expert and Senior Master, Class A etc. At first i thought it was a bit silly to have all these but then I realized it gives weaker players an interesting goal, to achieve the next title or class- good motivation for the real amateurs especially (less than 2000). More than likely some like to boast about it to their buddies, but let's not go there."
Or lets!
True: At one point of my chessplaying career, I was the highest rated Class A player in the world.
Of course, to people who know chess, this is really less effective!
CO :)
There seems to be women players responding in Kosteniuk's blog www.chessblog.com already 90 comments there on the same topic.
Thanks Elena. Since not everyone will click on the link here's a few points from the article by Alexandra Kosteniuk:
we need to understand men have a physiological advantage relative to women in which they have an easier time to devote their youth to chess without thinking of anything else.
She asked me several questions including if I thought special women's titles should be eliminated. In my answer to her, I wrote very clearly with my reasoning that "Women's titles and tournaments should exist". And then she changed the title of her piece to "Abolish Women's Chess Titles", and used my name in it (I guess to add some authority to it.
If we abolish women's titles, then to be logical you should abolish the Women's country championships, such as the recent Women's US Chess Championship, recently played in St. Louis, which was won brilliantly by Anna Zatonskih.
We should also understand that competitive sports is not something that many women like to do since it's very nervous and physically demanding, and requires constant travel.
Don't forget physiological reasons: men can much easier afford to focus only on one thing in life. If a boy decides to play chess professionally, or at least give it a few years to "try his luck", he can think only about chess, wake up and go to bed with only chess in his mind. On the other hand, one cannot contest that girls by their nature must have a different approach to life, probably mostly due to their biological "clock", girls must start early to think about founding a family or else it will be too late, and those are precisely the young years that you need to become strong at chess. I am sure there were many young girls with enormous talent who could have gone very far in chess but were not ready to take the "risky" path into a professional chess player's profession, and instead elected a "safer" college-work-family solution.
Physical strength and therefore the ability to concentrate and thus not to make mistakes is higher in men's chess and that's also another reason why, in the long term, men are showing greater results.
Titles are not just for fun. They also have a practical aspect.
Years ago, when FIDE created the FM title, I thought, who needs this silly title? Who would want it? But later, I talked to my friend Dave, who said, "I got a free entry in the Bermuda tournament because of my FM title." So I thought, organizers are paying attention to this title. Maybe this title was not so frivolous after all.
So it is, I think, with the women's titles. If the organizers care who has a title and who doesn't, if the national federations care, then FIDE is doing its job, it's good that they offer the title. If nobody cares, then the title is useless, they could just as well drop it.
That's how you answer the question. Forget all the ideology. If the title is working, if people are paying attention to it, it's cool. If it's not working, it's silly.
There should only be separate events for women if women are different from men. The evidence supports the fact that women are different. For example, Time magazine was reported to state in 1992 that the corpus callosum is "Often wider in the brains of women than in those of men, it may allow for greater cross-talk between the hemispheres—possibly the basis for women’s intuition."
A UCLA study on friendship among women suggests that women respond to stress with a cascade of brain chemicals that cause them to make and maintain friendships with other women. Until this study was published, scientists generally believed that when people experience stress, they trigger a hormonal cascade that revs the body to either stand and fight or flee as fast as possible, explains Laura Cousin Klein, Ph.D., now an Assistant Professor of Biobehavioral Health at Penn State University and one of the study's authors. It's an ancient survival mechanism left over from the time we were chased across the planet by saber-toothed tigers.
Now the researchers suspect that women have a larger behavioral repertoire than just fight or flight; In fact, says Dr. Klein, it seems that when the hormone oxytocin is release as part of the stress responses in a woman, it buffers the fight or flight response and encourages her to tend children and gather with other women instead. When she actually engages in this tending or befriending, studies suggest that more oxytocin is released, which further counters stress and produces a calming effect. This calming response does not occur in men, says Dr. Klein, because testosterone---which men produce in high levels when they're under stress---seems to reduce the effects of oxytocin. Estrogen, she adds, seems to enhance it.
http://www.baconlog.blogspot.com
http://blog.chess.com/nocab
noyb...I feel sorry for men like you...like a sheep...following Bobby...and you think what Bobby thought [as he was not sure himself, just said that as he felt intimidated by some good female chess players...!]