FM vs WGM

The W titles say absolutely nothing about any woman's abilities to play or succeed at chess.  What they recognize is the stage of development of Women's Chess and the fact that only about 8% of all tournament players are women and even among that 8%, a good many avoid open events.  Being talented, being intelligent, being interested being successful on the lower end doesn't translate automatically into master-ship (and given two groups, one with 8% the other with 92%, where do you think you have the best chance to find the best raw material?) To become a master, a player today, unlike in the 19th century, must have solid backing, training, experience, guidance, freedom and accessibility to even get into spitting distance of master level.  So, the chance for women to become a GM is far less than the chance for a man; its actually surprising, and a tribute, that as many as there are exist.   Women, as a group - and make no mistake, the pool size matters - trail the overall by a significant distance.  We have seen a marked improvement in younger players in the past decade or so primarily because the scholastic pool has increased, exposure to chess and chess events has increased and a concerted effort has been made to identify and improve players of promise (mostly boys, of course). To a far lesser extent, girls and women have been targeted (see Shahade's and Hoffman's "9 Queens") but not nearly enough to level the playing field.  To say- chess is a mind game and, since men and women are pretty equal mentally, there's no difference- is baloney. Mental acuity is an important factor but just one of many factors that goes into producing high level players.  Has Tal been born a women, there would have been no TAL.  I think at some point in time, W titles will play out, but not until women have benefited from the same advantages and cultural implications which men have enjoyed for centuries.

In the meantime, it's a curiosity to me why men care so much.  One poster said women with titles, but far less skill than some men with no titles, can pay in Titled Tuesdays events, so they have an unfair benefit (Entitled Tuesday??)... but that precludes the fact that the title didn't give the benefit, the creators of the event did by making the title a prerequisite; they could have chosen to call it the less alliterative ">2300 Tuesday." 

Exactly what does that mean?  Are you saying an IM title exists to make it easier for men who can't earn a GM title?   Or does your internal logic only apply to women? It's no easier (and for certain reasons, possibly harder) for a woman to earn a GM than a man and in earning a WGM , there's no male comparison.

Women aren't inferior to men at all.  Some men are more sucessful than some men and some men are more successful than some women ust as some men are more successful than other men, etc.  Women as a group have been less successful than men as a group and , yes pool size, participation rate, early and constant exposure to chess all play a significant role in this disparity.

Cultural implications are most certainly a factor and denial that these cultural issues are a factor only exacerbates their effects.  Maybe you and I both haven't lived for centuries but how were are viewed, perceived (even how we view and perceive ourselves), how we are treated, reacted to, interacted with, are very different - because of cultural influences ingrained over centuries.   I suppose you think that since there hasn't been a black man legally enslaved on American soil in 1.5 centuries, that a black man today doesn't feel every day the effects of the pre-emancipation era or that he views things and is viewed differently than a non-black man.

Women titles aren't a balancing act. They were first designed as a way of recognizing the very few women players in the mid-20th century and has continued as an incentive - and really a cheap one since they have little impact on anything.   Trying to turn it into a form of entitlement is as sad as it is incongruous. 

your earlier point, Bat, was still the Big thing to say in this redundant, pointless conversation that happens over and over (and over and over ....) again on chess.com.

"WHY do Guys CARE whether a women decides to get a "W" title"?

.... and if the Point of the thread is to compare FM and WGM; were I a women, I would prefer WGM- Probably! - because it DOES take more achievement to earn it, as you have to earn Norms.

OTOH, it surely has lesser prestige in chess- and that is a reason to consider ignoring it,.  and saving my money for the better, ungendered IM title.

Only a women Can and should worry about making this decision.

I think there's not nearly as much outrage amongst men about this issue as you think. On the contrary, women titles are not a form of discriminating against men - they're a form of discrimination against women. 

Equality is about being judged and valued based on who you are and what you can do as an individual. Women titles are a relic from a time when women's qualities were always judged within the context of being a woman, not as an individual. It's you who should be outraged about them. 

Why do you want this sexist and patronising label?

But there is a comparison... A male that reaches 2300 FIDE should have the strength of a WGM which is by male rating standards an FM. Both the FM and WGM titles are typically attained by reaching 2300 rating points. I'm not sure if you're saying that we simply should not make comparisons between women and mens' titles or something else but they are comparable at least by rating.

I just don't like the idea that a WGM title is lower than the GM title. WGM is an acronym for "women's grand master" but it doesn't really mean the same thing as "grandmaster that is a woman." It represents a player with 200 less rating points but is still somehow labeled a grandmaster. How does that work? I don't know. Is a man with 2300 rating points "a grandmaster with 200 less rating points as well?" I don't think anyone would go for that.

Having an anomaly, a Polgar or a woman as world champion won't do anything other that demonstrate that individually women are no worse than men.  Only by raising the level of women's chess through dedicated programs and increased participation will "Women" ever be equal to "Men" in chess.

Having a woman world chess champion may, however, serve, as an incentive just as having a American world champion inspired a generation of American players.

Actually, your own degree analogy is the one that's faulty. A  B.S. degree is a B.S. degree, just as an I.M is an I.M.  However, if there were to be frontal effort to attract more woman into a field of science, an incentive of some sort - a special scholarship or a gradient academic recognition - wouldn't be unthinkable, except women with scientific talent are usually recognized early and given the tools and the environment to succeed if they wish which is why, while there are far fewer women (not near as few as in chess), these fewer women are fairly successful and science, for the most part, isn't a competition.  For the record, there have been and still are women's universities.

Again, why are women titles such an issue with men?  If a women title is such an albatross, each women with one chooses to wear it.

The point is... women can go to any university. Some chose to go to a women-specific university.  That says nothing definitive about those women or the quality of their education.  It's just an option for them.

No.  Degrees are not equivalent to titles at all.   Almost anyone who puts in the time can get a degree. 

Something to think about: Should men be allowed to obtain "W" titles? 

Because to be honest I'd rather be a WGM than an FM. 

There was an intentional push to make (W)CM and (W)FM titles easier to obtain if you were one of the best in your (third world) country. The idea was to encourage more people in those countries to play chess.

Now, the bar for those titles has been lifted a little. For instance a WCM title requires an 1800 FIDE rating nowadays.

They give out these titles in special events with the idea that no one under the required strength will ever win such events anyway. If Awonder wasn't FM strength he simply wouldn't be able to win the tournament at all. Larry Kaufman got his GM title in a senior event and it's obvious there too that no one under GM strength could ever win it anyway. So this isn't really a good comparison.

A more realistic example might be of CM Phiona Mutesi, known for her story Queen of Katwe. She received her title of CM by her performance at the Olympiad. To get this title you must score 50% which she did. There was some talk about this though because although she did get that 50%, it was against players that aren't all that strong to begin with. The thing about the Olympiad is that there are a lot of low-rated tables and I suppose it's possible to end up at the lower-rated tables and get paired in a way to allow something like this to happen without actually showing CM level play. It's completely in line with FIDE rules but people didn't really expect something like this to happen and so there is controversy here.

For the most part however, you are not expected to perform well in any of those events that grant titles without playing at a certain strength and so things like the Olympiad situation rarely happen. If a woman was to participate and perform well in something like the mentioned senior event, she'd be awarded the GM title, and not the WGM title because they, for whatever reason, represent completely different playing strengths.

My two cents:

1. If a young woman advancing through the chess ranks finds herself close to a WIM or WGM title, and is able to use that to motivate herself to put in the extra effort and close that gap, then the titles can only be a good thing. Later in her career she can always abandon it if she prefers.

2. Regardless of what FIDE does in the future, I hope the decision is made by top female chess players and not a bunch of old men in a room. As this discussion has no impact on male chess players it's really none of our business, and any of you with super strong opinions on this should maybe be asking yourselves why that is.

Please stop using this red herring in some attempt to discredit people that disagree with you. It's poor form... It's obvious that people think the titles are degrading to women and that's where the discussion headed. Now unless you believe that only women should be allowed to care about something that may or may not be harmful or disrespectful to women, which I doubt, I think we should stop throwing around the old 'too cool for school lines' ok?

Most everyone that tops at these junior events are underrated. The people that are at their actual rating rarely score the way that the top scorers do.