♡ 19 ( +1 | -1 ) FIDE Rules for OTB TitlesFairly similar with the addition of a "minimum rating" (2400 for IM and 2500 for GM) in order to gain the title. GK play, of course, does not count for either FIDE or ICCF titles.
♡ 19 ( +1 | -1 ) wow, I'm glad to hear there is a GM here, but is it true that a female's GM is only a male's IM rating?! If so then I think that's awful, sexist, & offensive to the intelligence of the human race.
♡ 4 ( +1 | -1 ) coyotefan only cos the women tell us we are!!
♡ 96 ( +1 | -1 ) let's get the nomenclature straight...1.)To become a GM, there are certain requirements ("Norms"), such as achieving a 2600+ TPR at three different tourneys under FIDE control with a minimum number of IM's/GM's participating. Additionally, you have to get your rating above 2500. So, it's a combination of three GM norms and the 2500+ rating that earn you the GM title. Similar norms and requirements exist for IMs and FMs and WGMs WIMs and WFMs
2) A female GM is a GM that happens to be female. A GM is a GM is a GM. Gender doesn't matter.
3) As of now, there are eight (nine? - uncertain about Zaoquin) female GMs: J.Polgar, S. Polgar, A. Kosteniuk, A. Stefanova, K. Humpy, P. Cramling, M. Chiburdanidze, Z. Chen, P. Zaoquin
4) There are titles such as Women Grand Master, Women International Master etc. and a WGM title compares roughly to a high FM - low IM title.
5) Before we start throwing around words like "sexist" etc. we take our time, reflect a bit an ponder the reasons why FIDE might have invented those extra women titles...
♡ 24 ( +1 | -1 ) oh...and Yelena Dembo is an IM, she's not a "femal GM", she's definitely not a WGM. She's an IM. Just as Jeremy Silman, John Watson and many others. So please get your facts straight (which, by the way is the first step towards pulling the tooth of those "sexism" remarks...)...
♡ 25 ( +1 | -1 ) I'm stumped...... WHY would FIDE might have invented those extra women titles? There's nothing enticing about being segregated, belittled, and underestimated. Distinguishing chess skill or mental fortitude upon "gender" is ridiculous, no?
♡ 171 ( +1 | -1 ) by that logic, it's equally ridiculous to have junior championships etc. Distinguishing chess skill or mental fortitude upon "age" seems even more ridiculous, no?
One of the points to realize is, that there is a certain "drift" towards starting the "oh, how belittled must a woman feel if she's only got a WOMAN gm title" whenever we start the issue of women chess while noone is complaining about Paralympics, junior champions and such. Next point to realize is that there's little or no indication actually that the number of all women players, compared to the number of female +2500Elo players is grossly disparate to the relation of all-male-players vs male 2500+'s. Therefore, unless further evidence is put forth, it's a valid assumption that one of the reasons (maybe even THE major reason) why there are so few really strong femal chess players is not that they are worse, but simply that women for some reason or other seem to have little interest in chess. If you could change that, if more women wouls play the game, more female +2500 would emerge. And one way to do that, is to provide some sort of "reward" for being good at chess. And one form of "reward" is an official FIDE title. I guess the actual female WGM title holders are the least ones to be fooled by the meaning of that title. But if I judge from my own perspective, I definitely wouldn't loose my sleep over the fact that an FM title is not a GM title. I would be honored and very pleased should I ever make an FM... Same for Women titles.
It's always men that bring this "oh how bad must a woman feel if she's only a WIM"- thing up... Guess why...
♡ 58 ( +1 | -1 ) Thanx for you reply.That logic is a little something called Social Constructionism and, yes, it is ridiculous to discriminate based upon "age" as it would be ageist the same as the other is sexist.
The lack of women in chess is all the more reason not to segregate them into there own ELO rating pool as it's apperently too small to sustain itself. The ELO rating system isn't as accurate when divided into more than one group. Chess doesn't need more women to play, chess promoters need more women to play... for more profits. And I'm not a "man", I'm a male, but that's besides the point:P
♡ 89 ( +1 | -1 ) punkusmartyrus ...However, if there is any discrimanation I think it is to favoratism given women in Chess rather than an adverse one. They are free to compete in the mainstream of Chess for the same titles given men, as the Polgar sisters have done, among others . But also have the option to compete in womens'-only events for female oriented titles if they wish, and apparently do chose to do so in majority. And even in this case, of competing in restricted events for women, they may still compete for the titles undifferentiated by gender (commonly referred to as "mens" titles simply due to the preponderence of males gaining them I believe...) such as GM, IM, FM etc., can they not? It seems they have the Chess cake and eat it too ... perhaps much like this one>? sugarandspice }8-)) PS. And I have no complaints about That. It seems best for the Game to me.
♡ 116 ( +1 | -1 ) PPS //The last I know of, the Polgars never have competed in Womens'-only events nor for womens' gender-restricted titles. If that has changed, at least I am sure that they did attain their traditional unrestricted "GM"s before it ever happened. Was it Judit that attained it younger than Fischer? I think so. And Sophia once had a 2900+ performance in a major event. Believe that was in Rome, and may also have been the highest single event tournament performance ever recorded to that point. (Since Fischer's fantastic results in America included lower rated opponents than seen in high catagory European events ... and also was not aided by the modern ratings inflation at the top end of FIDE. Back then Only Fischer and Karpov were over 2700. Now there is a glut, and I have to wonder if todays 2800 is not the 70's 2700 in FIDE? In terms of comparative standards of deviation ... !? But that is another thread I suppose, and only an impression, not something Ive calculated. Love to hear it if someone has the goods on that matter tho. And in fairness to the Polgars, their feats were well before Y2k )
♡ 44 ( +1 | -1 ) "The lack of women in chess is all the more reason not to segregate them into there own ELO rating pool as it's apperently too small to sustain itself."???
What are you talking about??? -There is exactly one elo pool, namely the FIDE elo pool. -The idea of a rating pool not big enough to sustain itself (what in the world is that supposed to mean??) indicates that you should learn a) the difference between norms and elo b) how the elo system works
♡ 91 ( +1 | -1 ) "Open" EventsInstead of "Men's" Olympic, that section is now called "Open" and a number of women have elected (or been elected) to play for their national teams in the Open section (Judith Polgar, for example, though I don't know if she was the first to do so). The Polgar sisters have PRIMARILY played in Open events during their careers, but they did play together for Hungary in the "Women's" Olympic when younger and Susan later played in and won the World Women's Championship and played for the 2004 US Olympic team. Because women and juniors CAN always play in Open events (and should be encouraged to do so for the sake of development), I don't view the existence of Juniors, Seniors, Women's, Under-1800, or other events as discriminatory even if I would recommend to my own students (as I in fact did for my student who become a WIM) to play primarily in Open events.
Oh, my favorite joke above: "chess promoters' PROFITS" ROTFL!!!!!!!!
♡ 35 ( +1 | -1 ) alberlie ...Are you sure there isnt a seperate womens' rating. If not, I think its a change, as back the dark ages they did have an adjustment done in womens' ratings which took 100 points away from them, justified as having become inflationary. I cant recall the details of that. Probably in mid 80's to early 90's time frame.
♡ 126 ( +1 | -1 ) "Artificially" SeparateSeveral decades ago when FIDE ratings only extended down to 2200 for male players, FIDE ratings for women were ARTIFICALLY separated because they would rate women for much lower performances than for men (down to 1800 at that time). Because at that time few women played in Open FIDE-RATED events (the young Polgars were exceptions), the pools were mostly separate even though they used the same rating calculation and would rate games played between players in the two groups when they DID occur. It's much like an isolated group back in ccmcollister's home territory in the U.S. Midwest--while technically there was only one rating system, the strength of players might actually be different when comparing players rated at 2000 in those isolated states with one rated 2000 in, say California. As women began to play more and more in Open FIDE-rated events (note the surge in "Open" IM and GM titles held by women in the last decade) and FIDE started publishing lower ratings for men, the two pools merged more completely and ratings became more comparable.
♡ 72 ( +1 | -1 ) Just curious... how many of the people commenting in this thread are female?
It's impossible to tell online, of course. In OTB tournaments, however, it is very obvious when one is the only female out of two or three hundred players. Some women find the prospect of spending a day or a weekend as the only woman in a large group unpleasant, for various reasons. Some women have encountered blatant sexism from male chess players, for instance. Segregated events exist because they attract enough female players to justify themselves.
Don't like segregated events? Want to get rid of them? Start by making every woman you encounter at an open event feel welcome.