FM vs WGM
Sort:
[COMMENT DELETED]
Jul 17, 2017
0
#23
BobbyTalparov wrote:
Amplepawn wrote:
just seems weird that she beat 27-2800 rated players and they give her a 2600.. why not rate her by how she performed?
It was the 2009 Blitz Championship. She was rated how she performed. She had a couple of strong wins, but also lost 25 games (for comparison, Calrsen only lost 8 games).
i thought she won that tourney...
Jul 17, 2017
0
#24
I don't think there is anything wrong with separate titles for women. Most professional sports as well as the olympics and whatnot pair the sexes separately. I do however find it a little strange that some women don't find separate titles to be a little sexist, with the way equality has matured since the titles were first introduced. To be clear, I don't really know much about how otb rated chess titles work, for men or woman. This was just my thoughts from an outsiders standpoint.
ChrisWainscott hat geschrieben:
If women prefer to have a separate set of titles then why should that bother me?
Any women who don't want a W by their title are free to not apply for them.
Any women who don't want a W by their title are free to not apply for them.
For one, there is no seperate set of male titles, just one set available for women only and one set available to both genders. Meaning the whole thing is unequal.
Also titles, even the "W" ones, have some advantages at times. For example, think of chess.coms own Titled Tuesday. Being allowed to participate in that is dependant on having a title, making participation easier for women than for men (lower playing strength threshold for the weakest women titles than for the weakest general titles).
The absurdly weird thing about the whole issue is that somehow it needs explaining when men are being at a disadvantage here. Imagine it was the other way around, with men having a male-exclusive set of titles and tournament prize pools just for themselves while the same opportunities would not be open to women.
Feminists would decry chess as a sexist sport, newspapers would write about it and inevitably someone would sue FIDE.
Yet somehow, when men don't have equal opportunities then sexism suddenly isn't bad but to be ignored apparently.
If feminists truly fought for the gender equality they profess to believe in, they would fight this inequality with just the same amount of vigor and passion they have for issues where women are less than equal.
Of course, deafening silence on the chess gender inequality is all you will get from feminists. Guess that just shows why they are named feminists and not equalists...
Come on, this is about chess, probably most of them are totally unaware of it.
Eliminating women's titles would once and for all eliminate the possibility of a guy playing tournaments in drag to earn a women's title.
batgirl wrote:
It still doesn't make sense. A WGM can be rated about 2300, but take the "W" out and then she has to be at least 2500. So in other words, she has to play more, win more, study more, compete more. So, these women's titles give women an easy way out. A WGM is close to IM, but hardly anywhere near GM. In that case, why don't they make men's only titles? Make the same qualifications, just only men can have them. And we keep the regular titles. I'd like to see your reaction then.
ChrisWainscott wrote:
If women prefer to have a separate set of titles then why should that bother me?
Any women who don't want a W by their title are free to not apply for them.
Any women who don't want a W by their title are free to not apply for them.
That's what I've been preaching for years.
Either some people don't understand titles themselves or they don't understand the development of women's chess. Either way, the lack of thought in many of responses to this type of topic are usually balanced out by the surplus of presumptuousness.
Harmbtn wrote:
That's exactly what I'm trying to figure out!
batgirl wrote:
That's what I've been preaching for years.
Either some people don't understand titles themselves or they don't understand the development of women's chess. Either way, the a lack of thought in many of responses to this type of topic are usually balanced out by the surplus of presumptuousness.
I understand titles, but I don't understand how having separate titles (with much lower skill requirements) promotes development of women's chess. Seems to do the opposite.
In sports the genders are separated because there are different physiological limitations for men and women. The top male athletes are faster and stronger than their female counterparts, this is accepted fact. Roger Federer does not play against Serena Williams because there would be no doubt about the outcome.
Chess is a mind game, and when it comes to the mind, how fast or how strong you are physically does not mean anything. There is no evidence that men have any higher intellectual limit than women. Women make equally good musicians, artists and scientists. We don't give out separate Women Fields Medals or Women Nobel prizes for lesser achievements. It would be considered an insult.
Women titles don't bother me one bit, but they do baffle me. Why would anyone want a watered down title just because they have two x chromosomes? They exist because someone wanted to make some point about how men are better at chess. Why give these people ammunition for their arguments?
Being an FM means you're a strong chess player.
Being a WFM means you're a strong chess player for a women.
Women titles are really a marker of lower expectations. Why accept this misogynistic insult?
Jul 17, 2017
0
#33
A WFM is a strong player, probably no matter who she is
. yet she qualifies to obtain a CandidateMaster title
...So why not let her be a CandidateMaster instead?
Jul 17, 2017
0
#34
Amplepawn wrote:
A WFM is a strong player
Truly, being bestowed the title of master means you are in the company of great players!
You read that correctly, there are players with a master title with ratings such as 1170 and 1255.
If your thirst for greatness is still not quenched, you can reach even further. If you have ovaries, they'll make you a WIM at 1600 rating!
All or most of this discussion assumes women's minds and men's minds are the same. I do not think this assumption is true.
Jul 17, 2017
0
#36
those ratings are ridiculous, but would be understandable if they were age 7.
whats the differince between how a man and a woman see the chessboard?? probably absolutely none. if a man hasnt lost to woman, hes not a real chessplayer..
Jul 17, 2017
0
#37
bb_gum234 wrote:
ponz111 wrote:
All or most of this discussion assumes women's minds and men's minds are the same. I do not think this assumption is true.
They don't have to be the same, they just have to be similar at chess playing... not even exactly the same at chess playing.
To justify titles with a 200 point rating gap, we should be able to show that females preform 200 points lower due to their gender.
whats the differince between how a man and a woman see the chessboard?
I don't think it is important whether male and female brains are suited to chess differently. Maybe males have some natural advantage in chess, maybe not, maybe females have some natural advantage in chess, maybe not. What is important is, this is one game, same game for everyone, same rules, same everything. In these conditions, I fail to see the need to introduce the gender factor into anything related to the game. It is not like, say, boxing, where the differences go down to different sets of rules, different equipment, etc. for males and females, it is the exact same game for everyone - hence, the titles should be the exact same.
At least, as far as the official FIDE titles go. Other organizations can award their own titles under whatever conditions they please: junior titles, race titles, nation titles, etc. But the central world chess organization, I think, should be more unifying.
Jul 18, 2017
0
#39
ChrisWainscott wrote:
If women prefer to have a separate set of titles then why should that bother me?
Personally, I think there's nothing wrong with a "Woman Grandmaster" title, for example—though I see no logical reason why the title should involve lower requirements than the standard "Grandmaster" title.
The lesser requirements implies that women are inherently inferior at the game—which, in my opinion, is completely untrue.
SIowMove wrote:
That is the most profound statement that I've heard all day. Well said!
ChrisWainscott wrote:
If women prefer to have a separate set of titles then why should that bother me?
Personally, I think there's nothing wrong with a "Woman Grandmaster" title, for example—though I see no logical reason why the title should involve lower requirements than the standard "Grandmaster" title.
The lesser requirements implies that women are inherently inferior at the game—which, in my opinion, is completely untrue.
just seems weird that she beat 27-2800 rated players and they give her a 2600.. why not rate her by how she performed?