" How does it work with the ratings? Do they get WGM ratings by playing other women all the time? Just doesn't seem right. "
We have a WFM at my club....
1. When she plays the club championship she plays eleven men.
2. When she represents the club she plays mostly men.
3. When she enters open sections she plays mostly men.
4. When she plays a "woman's" event she plays only women.
I reckon at least 80% of her games are against men... she's worth every point of her rating.
It's called "National Master" :-)
that is a uscf title not a fide,
I believe more then Americans are allowed to join in uscf tournaments and get ratings /titles anyways they just can't win a national championship title. I could be wrong though
Never mind, didn't intend to pull the thread off topic.
There are a lot of misconceptions in this thread. Just that WFM, WIM and WGM titles exist doesn't mean women don't play with men all the time, or that they can't also compete for the normal titles. They're just extras.
And Judith Polgar didn't "maybe" come close enough to contest the world championship, she actually played in the 2005 San Luis world championship tournament, where Topalov became World Champion. She came 8th out of 8, but she did in fact contest the world championship.
Well actually I would say women's titles are kind of pointless. But maybe the fact that a woman reaches WFM encourages a woman, I dunno. I was talking about titles like "women's world championship" which should stay and women only tournaments.
If W-titles are meant to encourage women to play chess, then I think WGM and WIM are pointless -- at 2200 and 2300 you already have the CM and FM titles. There are already titles at those levels to encourage them. Would multiple titles encourage them even more? If that's the case, why don't we just have WGM-2 (version 2), WGM-3, WGM-4, etc, all with the same requirement, so that once they reach WGM level, they suddenly get 10 titles next to their name. Would that offer more encouragement?
Point is, I don't see how multiple titles would offer additional encouragement.
As for WFM and WCM, just abolish those and replace them with a different name, and make them open to everyone. So maybe replace WFM with "International Expert" and WCM with "FIDE Expert". If you want to encourage them with titles, why not make the titles sound better, rather than a dumb-down version of existing titles?
" How does it work with the ratings? Do they get WGM ratings by playing other women all the time? Just doesn't seem right. "
We have a WFM at my club....
1. When she plays the club championship she plays eleven men.
2. When she represents the club she plays mostly men.
3. When she enters open sections she plays mostly men.
4. When she plays a "woman's" event she plays only women.
I reckon at least 80% of her games are against men... she's worth every point of her rating.
I'm sure she is, your points just highlight that it doesn't make sense if women are not allowed to compete with men at the highest level.
"I'm sure she is, your points just highlight that it doesn't make sense if women are not allowed to compete with men at the highest level."
.... wow! still not getting it!
Women are allowed to compete against men at the highest level and to obtain all the titles that men hold.
The women's titles are in addition to the standard titles, as an encouragement I have always assumed.
Got it this time? or should I try to explain this with pictures?
Alot of you seem to miss the point of why a women chess title would encourage them to play chess. It is no secret that there are far less female chess players in the world then men. Also it is no secret that there are very few women that can play at the Top 100 chess players of the world level. I believe and please do correct me on this someone- that there are only 2 women in the top 100 players lsit. Therefore if the women chess world didin't have lower scrutiny for titles there would be precious few female GM's. Not everyone is encouraged by aspiring to something deemed near imposible so the WGM and WIM titles exist. The discussion on should they be abolished is a matter of weather women feel that this encourages them as I think or if most think it is an insult. The affected players should make a concensus on this matter and if in favor of abolishment they should talk to FIDE- the folks that make the titles up- and that would be the end of it.
"I'm sure she is, your points just highlight that it doesn't make sense if women are not allowed to compete with men at the highest level."
.... wow! still not getting it!
Women are allowed to compete against men at the highest level and to obtain all the titles that men hold.
The women's titles are in addition to the standard titles, as an encouragement I have always assumed.
Got it this time? or should I try to explain this with pictures?
Pictures please. There's always room for pictures. I seem to be missing the point. I didn't know they were allowed to compete. It's news to me. Never heard of a WGM until I came to this site a few month ago.
Never met a female Chess player before.
Chess isn't on TV or in the newspapers in my country, I love playing the game but don't have much interest in the top tier players.
I assumed this post was about woman wanting the right to play in the bigger tournaments. The mere suggestion of the existence of women only titles implies this, as does the answer to my first post.
So let me get this straight, women can play at any level against any gender? So who's the man (excuse the pun) on the female scene then?
Judith Polgar is the (wo)man on the female scene.
Although she isn't a real threat to the world championship crown, she has been ranked as high as 8 in the world.
Pictures please. There's always room for pictures. I seem to be missing the point. I didn't know they were allowed to compete. It's news to me. Never heard of a WGM until I came to this site a few month ago.
Never met a female Chess player before.
Chess isn't on TV or in the newspapers in my country, I love playing the game but don't have much interest in the top tier players.
I assumed this post was about woman wanting the right to play in the bigger tournaments. The mere suggestion of the existence of women only titles implies this, as does the answer to my first post.
So let me get this straight, women can play at any level against any gender? So who's the man (excuse the pun) on the female scene then?
Okay, I think we are singing from the same hymn sheet now, I appreciate your frank admission, no problem.
I've sent you an invitation to play, please accept.
p.s. Schachgeek.... I've marked you down as a trouble-maker.
Therefore if the women chess world didin't have lower scrutiny for titles there would be precious few female GM's. Not everyone is encouraged by aspiring to something deemed near imposible so the WGM and WIM titles exist.
Then why not just make additional titles open to everyone? For example:
2100 = "International Expert"
2000 = "FIDE Expert"
This has two advantages over the current system: 1) it's not degrading to anyone, 2) it encourages everyone (not just a small proportion of players)
Are there any disadvantages that I'm not seeing?
If Tommy gets to be a Grandmaster then I do too, or I'll tell.
If Sally gets to be a Grandmaster then I do too, or I'll tell.
Lol, "International expert". Titles do make you feel good about yourself.
If Tommy gets to be a Grandmaster then I do too, or I'll tell.
I suspect that's the reason. Then again, WGM is not a real GM (it isn't even IM-level). I'd rather be an authentic FM rather than a fake GM.
If people really want to feel good by getting titles, no problem. Just keep creating lower-level titles open to everyone.
Like Schachgeek mentioned, should we have separate titles for different ethnic groups to encourage low-participation groups?
Just create more lower-level titles, and you'll encourage everyone--men, women, caucasians/blacks/asians/etc...everyone regardless of their gender, race, country, IQ, etc. And it saves us all these discussions about sexism (with complaints coming from both genders!)
I'm curious, can some of the pro-women's-title people here give us some reasons why having women-only titles is better than just creating more lower-level titles?
I've never understood why they are separated in the first place. This isn't tennis. Chess is for everybody, but so is fishing, just tends to be mostly guys who do it. I assume its the same with Chess. I personally don't know one single female who actually plays the game but for those who do I don't understand why they can't be considered for the same titles.
They could be, but they would likely be discouraged if they always lost in the highest sections. I'm sure the world women champion is happy now because she would lose miserably in the real one. I'm just saying. The women's titles or at least tournaments are encouraging more women to play especially if they can play with each other. In an ideal chess world, we wouldn't need them, but since no woman has ever been good enough (besisdes maybe Judit Polgar but even she was far from it) to contest the world championship, they make a women's class. I'm not sure on how many new women play because of them though, because if it doesn't get more women playing, it's just unfair to the 2700+ players who have harder competition.
How does it work with the ratings? Do they get WGM ratings by playing other women all the time? Just doesn't seem right.