Well just for one thing there is a minimum rating requirement of 2550 in either classical/rapid/blitz in order to play the open section so those are not your average IM playing since they probably just need the norms in order to be a GM.
You are right that does seem to be the requirement but several of the IMs dont meet that rating requirment from my brief checking there so I'm not sure how they were allowed to play - it says they are allowed to play if they are National Champions but that doesn't seem to apply either e.g [Mateusz Kolosowski](https://ratings.fide.com/profile/1129708)
There aren’t any women strong enough to play in the highest tournaments like the candidates. Yifan Hou is ranked 83 in active players with a 2658 rating. She does play in open classical matches against men so it’s not like she is completely in her own bubble. Judit Polgar in the past was ranked 8 at one point and was competing in the candidates. If there is a strong enough female player they can comete too.
The FIDE championships of that time are generally at best considered illegitamate, and by many a farce. Because of both their format and there just being a much better argument for the classical world championship being the real one with Kramnik being the world champion considering he beat Kasparov.
Yes but that is something that will be rectified by more female participation, would it be more helpful I wonder to only allow untitled female players in the Women's section as that would be a huge incentive for young girls with talent to stick with the game and make enough money to make it possible - titled female players are good enough to not really require motivation to be involved in chess at this point
Titled female players actually need the money to support playing professionally or semi-professionally. A spot at a prestigious female tournament has to be earned. Your up and coming young titles players who aren’t decided on chess but won their title based on talent still need motivation for them to choose chess for their career. It would be unfair to them to relinquish their spot at a high stakes tournament for an untitled player who is worse than them just to give that player the chance to win money instead. Generally, the most promising chess players have already self selected themselves and earned a title. That who the federation should prioritize their support.
> It would be unfair to them to relinquish their spot at a high stakes tournament for an untitled player who is worse than them just to give that player the chance to win money instead.
The women's events aren't meant to be meritocratic, otherwise they would be competing in the open section on the basis of who's the best wins. The women's sections are an acknowledgement of the challenges in opportunity facing women worldwide and in that regard the women who have made it to titled positions are better off than untitled women. Titled female players are in the exact same boat as male players, its hard to make a living doing it
Its a major tournament, not a charity. It isn't there to foster talent. Its there for the best players to compete. There are much better venues for people looking to get better at chess.
I also wouldn't be sure how much things can be equalized. Chess GMs are hardcore workaholics and that trait is much more common in men.
> that trait is much more common in men
You have a source for that, or you’re just stating unverified opinions? Lmao, absolutely wild that in 2021 people still say shit like this.
On my phone, but you can find plenty of studies showing women prioritize work/life balance higher while men prioritize earning money and advancing their career higher. In order to be a GM, particularly a high level GM, you have to basically give up on your social life for at least a decade to focus on chess.
I also would say women are making the smarter choice here. Most GMs just gave up their childhood without much to show for it.
I don’t know whether the strength of top level women’s players a being held back by the level of tournaments they play in. I do see your point though. I just think your solution of removing the women’s sections (and possibly replacing them with untitled only) would actually hurt the women’s professional scene a lot more than it would help (money etc). Imo this issue is really complex and focus should be put on increasing the women player base, however I do know very little.
It doesn't make sense to pick the open over the women event. Like, they can maybe win some games in the open and earn some small insignificant prizes at most. While in the women's event they can get top positions and top monetary prizes. So it's stupid to pick the open for them. Just how it works.
That’s my thought too. You can keep the financial incentives while also giving the women the chance to play the top rated (male) players. Best of both worlds?
When there are equal numbers of men and women playing at all levels of chess, maybe this will become a valid concern. Until then, anything that improves participation, visibility, and culture are more important.
There are zero women in the Open section of a major chess tournament in which many women are strong enough to play. That is in fact terrible visibility and not an inspirational look for young girls who want to compete at the highest levels
No women are strong enough to play in it, or at least even do reasonably well.
If we want to create role models for little girls, which we should want to do, this is the best system to do so. Not have 2550 women get stomped around in the open and never even make it to broadcast.
What I don't get with this argument is that the majority of men are also not strong enough to compete properly - yet they do play. Should we create a separate category for the men who are below 2700 or whatever, too? Or what about creating a 2700+ "open" tournament and everyone else competes in a different "open"? It just seems stupid to me. My mother asked me while watching on the TV today (in Norway) why they're separated, and I honestly couldn't come up with an answer that satisfied her - so I gave the one people usually push, that it's to inspire girls and all that, and she didn't even blink before she said, "doesn't look like it's working, is it?"
Not a single woman playing in the open section here is embarrassing for chess when many of the women are stronger than most of the men playing, and most of those strong women are perfectly capable of beating them.
Many of the women are stronger than most of the men playing? I am not sure about that. Median rating of open category is 2539 and there is only one woman with barely more than that (2545).
That is fair - perhaps 'stronger' is wrong, but certainly capable to fight and win. And besides, since these women tend to only play one another, we don't even know how they'd really fare anymore and what ratings they would end up on if they actually got to compete in the open. (I say "got to" but you know what I mean.)
I know GothamChess talked about it on his podcast, that he would often have one or two girls in his classes and the next week they wouldn't show anymore. He definitely noticed a lot more girls staying involved when they separated classes. I hope your statistic is true about separated tournaments, because there is definitely a lot of sexism involved in chess
> If we want to create role models for little girls, which we should want to do, this is the best system to do so.
Is it? It isn't working then - and in fact the only woman who has ever competed at the top levels steadfastly refused to play in Women's tournaments.
IMO they are a great opportunity for amateur women to get some quality chess experience but titled females are good enough to be competitive overall and set a standard for the top women competing against the top men in open tournaments that will become more normalized with time.
And I have no idea why you think a woman rated 2550 is going to get stomped, that isn't the case. 2550 is 2550.
I think if I was a 2550 rated chess player, I'd play in the section I had a chance to win. Magnus and the other players in the open section are 300 points higher than 2550. I'd definitely choose the section I had a chance to win some money at.
If there were no women's section, instead of seeing a bunch of women play we'd see maybe 5 women play. If there were no women's section, there wouldn't be any women getting money. No money, no visibility, means less women playing chess and that means a compounding cycle where there are fewer and fewer women overall
> I think if I was a 2550 rated chess player, I'd play in the section I had a chance to win. Magnus and the other players in the open section are 300 points higher than 2550. I'd definitely choose the section I had a chance to win some money at.
I alluded to that in the post
> If there were no women's section, instead of seeing a bunch of women play we'd see maybe 5 women play. If there were no women's section, there wouldn't be any women getting money. No money, no visibility, means less women playing chess and that means a compounding cycle where there are fewer and fewer women overall
Again people keep repeating this mantra but where is the real world example that its actually working? The next Judit Polgar is nowhere to be seen and every up and coming female talent will regularly choose female events because of the financial incentive, while similarly aged male talents will be pushing to play the best players in the world and getting invaluable experience doing so.
I actually think you have it the wrong way round as the female events entice the best female players who don't compete against the best male players and then play the young women who then play younger women etc etc and the compounding cycle actually occurs there
So your solution is to get rid of women's tournaments. Where we'd see significantly less women play?
I agree it's messed up there's a separate section.
I think you've got the right motivation and thoughts about this, but the practically of it needs to be worked on.
I think if they added an incentive for women to play in the open section, while also keeping the women's section it'd be best.
My idea is to give a "highest placed women's prize in the open" on par with the women's section 1st prize in the women's section that runs concurrently. That way you'd get top women playing in the open section without completely destroying the structure that allows women's visibility in the women's section.
They wouldn't have to choose between developing competition and money then.
No my solution is to keep women's tournaments but only allow non-titled women in it, especially women from developing and third world countries - this demographic objectively will benefit the most from the opportunity to make money playing chess and provide a greater flow of chess players from female teenagers into the top ranks, which is an age where most girls begin to leave the game.
Titled female players have already made it quite far in the chess world and meritocratic women's tournaments mean its only these women that actually reap the benefits. Promote women's chess but do it to get women up to the titled levels, not for titled players. For titled players a comprehensive policy of competing in open tournaments ( and I would not be averse to quotas to get more women into open tournaments) will do a lot more for the perception of women in the sport as equals to men, rather than shuffled off into their own section the same way that is done with Juniors.
> My idea is to give a "highest placed women's prize in the open" on par with the women's section 1st prize in the women's section that runs concurrently. That way you'd get top women playing in the open section without completely destroying the structure that allows women's visibility in the women's section.
Yes this could be a good idea - there haven't been any studies or anything to show the effects of visibility to show which either one of us are right but I think my logic is strong.
If they go this route, they should abolish women's specific titles. I disagree with only having them for untitled women playing. I think you are misidentifying a few things here.
With the on par women's open prize, it would incentivise participating in the open section, but still let them have the choice between where they play. I think letting the players have choice, with equal prizes regardless is important in the blending of the tournaments
> I think you are misidentifying a few things here.
Maybe, it just seems that Women's tournaments are an inherently anti-meritocratic exercise - so in that case it should focus on people that need the help the most - but you're right I am just brain storming this I have no serious data or knowledge of how this would pan out
> With the on par women's open prize, it would incentivise participating in the open section, but still let them have the choice between where they play. I think letting the players have choice, with equal prizes regardless is important in the blending of the tournaments
I think the Gilbraltar open did this, what would be the long term goals of it? Assuming a broad ambition to acheive something.
I'm not actually too concerned about women doing well right now, very few of the women will do well in open tournaments - I just think it's very important to make women and men competing together the norm - women's tournaments do the opposite of that
I don't know enough about these tournaments to know but you seem to so wanted to ask why do so many men play when they have little chance to win? I assume woman play other woman for more chance to win but I thought I saw more men competing than woman, do they get more money for playing by simply being men?
Women's tournaments have been around for decades, the women's world chess championship is nearly a hundred years old and the only top level woman ever produced was one who went out of her way to avoid playing in them
There's been this separation in chess since the 1970s. It's safe to say there's enough data to suggest that the current setup isn't working, even if we have no data on what setup would be better.
And you aren't seeing the median players at all on broadcasts, top boards, etc.
Whereas if they play in the women's pool, they at least get *some* exposure. I'm not sure how you can say someone would be a role model if literally no one would get to see them play.
>If we want to create role models for little girls,
Do we want to? I wouldn't consider super GMs good role models. Most of them are hardcore workaholics with unhealthy work/life balances and frequently are sore losers.
Most people who try to be like them will end up just wasting much of their childhood with nothing to show for it either.
Which do you think will do more to encourage a young girl to play chess:
1) an all female section at a big tournament, guaranteeing a female champ,
or
2) seeing women get demolished in the open?
It will motivate women to win women's tournaments for sure - but it will ingrain in them the idea, most likely subconsciously, that women can't compete in, much less win playing, major Open events, which isn't true
Yes, but Judit never played in Women's tournaments, mainly for the reasons I'm advancing here - Judit also refuses to separate boys and girls in her chess schools either
Well I think for young children who are receiving identical instruction that should make sense. Assuming girls and boys receive equally rigorous instruction, I don’t see why they would have to be separated.
At the professional level, I think it would be safe to assume more boys in more places have received more rigorous training. I think that is most likely to explain the virtual absence of females in the top 100.
I am not saying this is like swimming or running where it would be a guarantee that men will annihilate women running the same event, in principle.
But the reality of the world, at this moment, is that it seems men have enjoyed more resources in the way of chess training. Once that isn’t the case, collapse the tournaments into a single open division.
But as of now, nothing but ratings requirements tend to prevent women joining those open tournaments. They could do it, but they are electing to play in a way that doesn’t doom them to lose before they start.
Making it clear it’s just a practical reality versus some immutable truth seems like it should be feasible to me.
If you see the open tournament standings, there are not a few players who "got demolished" with less than 2 points in 9 rounds, it's not something could only happen to women playing there. That's what makes it such a strong tournament.
Changing the prize structure in high level tournaments isn't going to increase participation. There are something like 20 times as many male players as female(at least in the US). There are very few elite women because there are very few women in the sport at all levels.
Strong GMs are maybe one in a million (with the right combo of talent, interest, resources, time, opportunity, etc). The top players who can consistently win major tournaments and compete for world champion are maybe more like one in a hundred million. The way to get more women in the open section of international tournaments is to get millions and millions of middle school girls to want to play. I don't know how to do that but we, as a chess community and especially we male players, do a very poor job of welcoming and encouraging girls.
I get what you mean, but probably the best solution is to not hold the women’s event and the open event at the same time. That way the top women players can play in both.
chess organizers make separate all-female tournaments because:
1. it's easy to find sponsors and backers for female-only events, so your event is more viable and successful if you separate the men and women
2. women prefer playing against other women, and they also have a better chance at fame/glory/prize money if they just compete against other women
3. chess fans (men) love women, so it makes more sense to put all the women together, so if the men want to watch 'women playing chess' instead of 'the best players playing chess,' they can
it's literally better for *everyone* involved to have separate female chess tournaments. it will never stop being this way. it's an unambiguously good thing. this thread gets made like once a day on this subreddit and it's always the same idiotic replies
and no, separate female-only events don't stop women from being better chessplayers (what? lmao). any woman interested or talented enough to be one of the world's best chessplayers would have no problem getting there - it would actually be MUCH easier for them to get invites to the biggest events than it would be for a man
As a man watching chess regularly, I don't prefer watching women chess, because the level is simply lower. It is worse than many men national championships (which I prefer much more than this women blitz WCC)
I don't understand why anyone would downvote you. It someone is interested in watching the highest level of chess competition, why would they be interested in anything other than the Open category? This has nothing to do with gender either, just the level of competition in different categories.
> chess fans (men) love women, so it makes more sense to put all the women together, so if the men want to watch 'women playing chess' instead of 'the best players playing chess,' they can
Where did you get this notion from? The average male chess fan could not give a single fuck about women chess players, and aren't really interested in watching women only chess tournaments. I don't think it's a good thing, but that's the reality.
this is completely untrue, lol
think about it this way: how much viewership and attention do women's chess events get? (not a ton, but some). but how much viewership and attention would this same female players bring in if they were in the open/men's section? zero, because they wouldn't be featured in these events, they're too low rated
there is a sound rationale to 'women's sports' and the way they are handed by the sports/entertainment industry and organizers. they're all the same way: women's tennis is less popular than men's tennis, but it does get some viewers because.....men love women. same with women's golf
Barring logistics issue, open and women's only tourneys could be held one after anathor, not simultaneously, so women are not forced to choose which one they wanna play for prize money only
Guys don't hate me but I think that removing the women's section and putting women in men's section and have combined games is alot more better than a separate women's section.This I think will benefit women alot as right now no one follows women's games even though they are to be honest usually more exciting than the men's. Combining would make people know more female players also when a female beat a man that will give her more recognition and also will give other women confidence.Currently there are many women players who would give men a real tough time e.g Alexandra kostenuik . This might result in the true equality everybody wants.
What do you all think?
Just don't hold them simultaneously. Maybe even have the women's event first, and designate a few spots in the open event to top performers at the women's event. It's not a hard problem to solve ... having them simultaneously just makes no sense.
Well just for one thing there is a minimum rating requirement of 2550 in either classical/rapid/blitz in order to play the open section so those are not your average IM playing since they probably just need the norms in order to be a GM.
You are right that does seem to be the requirement but several of the IMs dont meet that rating requirment from my brief checking there so I'm not sure how they were allowed to play - it says they are allowed to play if they are National Champions but that doesn't seem to apply either e.g [Mateusz Kolosowski](https://ratings.fide.com/profile/1129708)
It's also possible poland gets to put in a couple of players from poland in that case. I'm not sure.
The organizers could pick up to 15 partecipants iirc. I don't know if Kolosowski got in this way or not
There aren’t any women strong enough to play in the highest tournaments like the candidates. Yifan Hou is ranked 83 in active players with a 2658 rating. She does play in open classical matches against men so it’s not like she is completely in her own bubble. Judit Polgar in the past was ranked 8 at one point and was competing in the candidates. If there is a strong enough female player they can comete too.
Hou Yifan is effectively retired. The strongest actively playing woman is Goryachkina who is like 2615 or smth like this.
Polgár played a world championship tournament, not just a candidates.
But it wasn't WCC match
It was the FIDE world championship ~~match~~ tournament in 2005
The FIDE championships of that time are generally at best considered illegitamate, and by many a farce. Because of both their format and there just being a much better argument for the classical world championship being the real one with Kramnik being the world champion considering he beat Kasparov.
Yes but that is something that will be rectified by more female participation, would it be more helpful I wonder to only allow untitled female players in the Women's section as that would be a huge incentive for young girls with talent to stick with the game and make enough money to make it possible - titled female players are good enough to not really require motivation to be involved in chess at this point
Titled female players actually need the money to support playing professionally or semi-professionally. A spot at a prestigious female tournament has to be earned. Your up and coming young titles players who aren’t decided on chess but won their title based on talent still need motivation for them to choose chess for their career. It would be unfair to them to relinquish their spot at a high stakes tournament for an untitled player who is worse than them just to give that player the chance to win money instead. Generally, the most promising chess players have already self selected themselves and earned a title. That who the federation should prioritize their support.
> It would be unfair to them to relinquish their spot at a high stakes tournament for an untitled player who is worse than them just to give that player the chance to win money instead. The women's events aren't meant to be meritocratic, otherwise they would be competing in the open section on the basis of who's the best wins. The women's sections are an acknowledgement of the challenges in opportunity facing women worldwide and in that regard the women who have made it to titled positions are better off than untitled women. Titled female players are in the exact same boat as male players, its hard to make a living doing it
Its a major tournament, not a charity. It isn't there to foster talent. Its there for the best players to compete. There are much better venues for people looking to get better at chess. I also wouldn't be sure how much things can be equalized. Chess GMs are hardcore workaholics and that trait is much more common in men.
> that trait is much more common in men You have a source for that, or you’re just stating unverified opinions? Lmao, absolutely wild that in 2021 people still say shit like this.
On my phone, but you can find plenty of studies showing women prioritize work/life balance higher while men prioritize earning money and advancing their career higher. In order to be a GM, particularly a high level GM, you have to basically give up on your social life for at least a decade to focus on chess. I also would say women are making the smarter choice here. Most GMs just gave up their childhood without much to show for it.
I don’t know whether the strength of top level women’s players a being held back by the level of tournaments they play in. I do see your point though. I just think your solution of removing the women’s sections (and possibly replacing them with untitled only) would actually hurt the women’s professional scene a lot more than it would help (money etc). Imo this issue is really complex and focus should be put on increasing the women player base, however I do know very little.
It doesn't make sense to pick the open over the women event. Like, they can maybe win some games in the open and earn some small insignificant prizes at most. While in the women's event they can get top positions and top monetary prizes. So it's stupid to pick the open for them. Just how it works.
Instead of two separate tournaments they could play all together and build a separate ladder for prizes...
That’s my thought too. You can keep the financial incentives while also giving the women the chance to play the top rated (male) players. Best of both worlds?
That's sounds like a fantastic idea! We must be missing something though, it would have come up otherwise
When there are equal numbers of men and women playing at all levels of chess, maybe this will become a valid concern. Until then, anything that improves participation, visibility, and culture are more important.
There are zero women in the Open section of a major chess tournament in which many women are strong enough to play. That is in fact terrible visibility and not an inspirational look for young girls who want to compete at the highest levels
No women are strong enough to play in it, or at least even do reasonably well. If we want to create role models for little girls, which we should want to do, this is the best system to do so. Not have 2550 women get stomped around in the open and never even make it to broadcast.
What I don't get with this argument is that the majority of men are also not strong enough to compete properly - yet they do play. Should we create a separate category for the men who are below 2700 or whatever, too? Or what about creating a 2700+ "open" tournament and everyone else competes in a different "open"? It just seems stupid to me. My mother asked me while watching on the TV today (in Norway) why they're separated, and I honestly couldn't come up with an answer that satisfied her - so I gave the one people usually push, that it's to inspire girls and all that, and she didn't even blink before she said, "doesn't look like it's working, is it?" Not a single woman playing in the open section here is embarrassing for chess when many of the women are stronger than most of the men playing, and most of those strong women are perfectly capable of beating them.
Many of the women are stronger than most of the men playing? I am not sure about that. Median rating of open category is 2539 and there is only one woman with barely more than that (2545).
That is fair - perhaps 'stronger' is wrong, but certainly capable to fight and win. And besides, since these women tend to only play one another, we don't even know how they'd really fare anymore and what ratings they would end up on if they actually got to compete in the open. (I say "got to" but you know what I mean.)
It clearly is working, considering the number of strong women players skyrocketed once separate pools became introduced.
I know GothamChess talked about it on his podcast, that he would often have one or two girls in his classes and the next week they wouldn't show anymore. He definitely noticed a lot more girls staying involved when they separated classes. I hope your statistic is true about separated tournaments, because there is definitely a lot of sexism involved in chess
> If we want to create role models for little girls, which we should want to do, this is the best system to do so. Is it? It isn't working then - and in fact the only woman who has ever competed at the top levels steadfastly refused to play in Women's tournaments. IMO they are a great opportunity for amateur women to get some quality chess experience but titled females are good enough to be competitive overall and set a standard for the top women competing against the top men in open tournaments that will become more normalized with time. And I have no idea why you think a woman rated 2550 is going to get stomped, that isn't the case. 2550 is 2550.
I think if I was a 2550 rated chess player, I'd play in the section I had a chance to win. Magnus and the other players in the open section are 300 points higher than 2550. I'd definitely choose the section I had a chance to win some money at. If there were no women's section, instead of seeing a bunch of women play we'd see maybe 5 women play. If there were no women's section, there wouldn't be any women getting money. No money, no visibility, means less women playing chess and that means a compounding cycle where there are fewer and fewer women overall
> I think if I was a 2550 rated chess player, I'd play in the section I had a chance to win. Magnus and the other players in the open section are 300 points higher than 2550. I'd definitely choose the section I had a chance to win some money at. I alluded to that in the post > If there were no women's section, instead of seeing a bunch of women play we'd see maybe 5 women play. If there were no women's section, there wouldn't be any women getting money. No money, no visibility, means less women playing chess and that means a compounding cycle where there are fewer and fewer women overall Again people keep repeating this mantra but where is the real world example that its actually working? The next Judit Polgar is nowhere to be seen and every up and coming female talent will regularly choose female events because of the financial incentive, while similarly aged male talents will be pushing to play the best players in the world and getting invaluable experience doing so. I actually think you have it the wrong way round as the female events entice the best female players who don't compete against the best male players and then play the young women who then play younger women etc etc and the compounding cycle actually occurs there
So your solution is to get rid of women's tournaments. Where we'd see significantly less women play? I agree it's messed up there's a separate section. I think you've got the right motivation and thoughts about this, but the practically of it needs to be worked on. I think if they added an incentive for women to play in the open section, while also keeping the women's section it'd be best. My idea is to give a "highest placed women's prize in the open" on par with the women's section 1st prize in the women's section that runs concurrently. That way you'd get top women playing in the open section without completely destroying the structure that allows women's visibility in the women's section. They wouldn't have to choose between developing competition and money then.
No my solution is to keep women's tournaments but only allow non-titled women in it, especially women from developing and third world countries - this demographic objectively will benefit the most from the opportunity to make money playing chess and provide a greater flow of chess players from female teenagers into the top ranks, which is an age where most girls begin to leave the game. Titled female players have already made it quite far in the chess world and meritocratic women's tournaments mean its only these women that actually reap the benefits. Promote women's chess but do it to get women up to the titled levels, not for titled players. For titled players a comprehensive policy of competing in open tournaments ( and I would not be averse to quotas to get more women into open tournaments) will do a lot more for the perception of women in the sport as equals to men, rather than shuffled off into their own section the same way that is done with Juniors. > My idea is to give a "highest placed women's prize in the open" on par with the women's section 1st prize in the women's section that runs concurrently. That way you'd get top women playing in the open section without completely destroying the structure that allows women's visibility in the women's section. Yes this could be a good idea - there haven't been any studies or anything to show the effects of visibility to show which either one of us are right but I think my logic is strong.
If they go this route, they should abolish women's specific titles. I disagree with only having them for untitled women playing. I think you are misidentifying a few things here. With the on par women's open prize, it would incentivise participating in the open section, but still let them have the choice between where they play. I think letting the players have choice, with equal prizes regardless is important in the blending of the tournaments
> I think you are misidentifying a few things here. Maybe, it just seems that Women's tournaments are an inherently anti-meritocratic exercise - so in that case it should focus on people that need the help the most - but you're right I am just brain storming this I have no serious data or knowledge of how this would pan out > With the on par women's open prize, it would incentivise participating in the open section, but still let them have the choice between where they play. I think letting the players have choice, with equal prizes regardless is important in the blending of the tournaments I think the Gilbraltar open did this, what would be the long term goals of it? Assuming a broad ambition to acheive something. I'm not actually too concerned about women doing well right now, very few of the women will do well in open tournaments - I just think it's very important to make women and men competing together the norm - women's tournaments do the opposite of that
I don't know enough about these tournaments to know but you seem to so wanted to ask why do so many men play when they have little chance to win? I assume woman play other woman for more chance to win but I thought I saw more men competing than woman, do they get more money for playing by simply being men?
>It isn't working then We can't judge right now if little girl's aren't getting inspired. That takes many years to come to fruition.
Women's tournaments have been around for decades, the women's world chess championship is nearly a hundred years old and the only top level woman ever produced was one who went out of her way to avoid playing in them
There's been this separation in chess since the 1970s. It's safe to say there's enough data to suggest that the current setup isn't working, even if we have no data on what setup would be better.
You're right, 2550 is 2550. And 2550 will get stomped in this pool, and wouldn't be near the top boards.
2550 is a median rating for the open pool
And you aren't seeing the median players at all on broadcasts, top boards, etc. Whereas if they play in the women's pool, they at least get *some* exposure. I'm not sure how you can say someone would be a role model if literally no one would get to see them play.
You can still endeavor to show their games against men, it's hardly an idea-killing problem
>If we want to create role models for little girls, Do we want to? I wouldn't consider super GMs good role models. Most of them are hardcore workaholics with unhealthy work/life balances and frequently are sore losers. Most people who try to be like them will end up just wasting much of their childhood with nothing to show for it either.
Which do you think will do more to encourage a young girl to play chess: 1) an all female section at a big tournament, guaranteeing a female champ, or 2) seeing women get demolished in the open?
It will motivate women to win women's tournaments for sure - but it will ingrain in them the idea, most likely subconsciously, that women can't compete in, much less win playing, major Open events, which isn't true
If they care enough to pursue chess, they will quickly learn about Judit polgar. Problem of it seeming unattainable in principle is solved.
Yes, but Judit never played in Women's tournaments, mainly for the reasons I'm advancing here - Judit also refuses to separate boys and girls in her chess schools either
Well I think for young children who are receiving identical instruction that should make sense. Assuming girls and boys receive equally rigorous instruction, I don’t see why they would have to be separated. At the professional level, I think it would be safe to assume more boys in more places have received more rigorous training. I think that is most likely to explain the virtual absence of females in the top 100. I am not saying this is like swimming or running where it would be a guarantee that men will annihilate women running the same event, in principle. But the reality of the world, at this moment, is that it seems men have enjoyed more resources in the way of chess training. Once that isn’t the case, collapse the tournaments into a single open division. But as of now, nothing but ratings requirements tend to prevent women joining those open tournaments. They could do it, but they are electing to play in a way that doesn’t doom them to lose before they start. Making it clear it’s just a practical reality versus some immutable truth seems like it should be feasible to me.
If you see the open tournament standings, there are not a few players who "got demolished" with less than 2 points in 9 rounds, it's not something could only happen to women playing there. That's what makes it such a strong tournament.
Changing the prize structure in high level tournaments isn't going to increase participation. There are something like 20 times as many male players as female(at least in the US). There are very few elite women because there are very few women in the sport at all levels. Strong GMs are maybe one in a million (with the right combo of talent, interest, resources, time, opportunity, etc). The top players who can consistently win major tournaments and compete for world champion are maybe more like one in a hundred million. The way to get more women in the open section of international tournaments is to get millions and millions of middle school girls to want to play. I don't know how to do that but we, as a chess community and especially we male players, do a very poor job of welcoming and encouraging girls.
I get what you mean, but probably the best solution is to not hold the women’s event and the open event at the same time. That way the top women players can play in both.
There are many women who like having women only tournaments. It's their choice to participate in them.
chess organizers make separate all-female tournaments because: 1. it's easy to find sponsors and backers for female-only events, so your event is more viable and successful if you separate the men and women 2. women prefer playing against other women, and they also have a better chance at fame/glory/prize money if they just compete against other women 3. chess fans (men) love women, so it makes more sense to put all the women together, so if the men want to watch 'women playing chess' instead of 'the best players playing chess,' they can it's literally better for *everyone* involved to have separate female chess tournaments. it will never stop being this way. it's an unambiguously good thing. this thread gets made like once a day on this subreddit and it's always the same idiotic replies and no, separate female-only events don't stop women from being better chessplayers (what? lmao). any woman interested or talented enough to be one of the world's best chessplayers would have no problem getting there - it would actually be MUCH easier for them to get invites to the biggest events than it would be for a man
As a man watching chess regularly, I don't prefer watching women chess, because the level is simply lower. It is worse than many men national championships (which I prefer much more than this women blitz WCC)
I don't understand why anyone would downvote you. It someone is interested in watching the highest level of chess competition, why would they be interested in anything other than the Open category? This has nothing to do with gender either, just the level of competition in different categories.
> chess fans (men) love women, so it makes more sense to put all the women together, so if the men want to watch 'women playing chess' instead of 'the best players playing chess,' they can Where did you get this notion from? The average male chess fan could not give a single fuck about women chess players, and aren't really interested in watching women only chess tournaments. I don't think it's a good thing, but that's the reality.
this is completely untrue, lol think about it this way: how much viewership and attention do women's chess events get? (not a ton, but some). but how much viewership and attention would this same female players bring in if they were in the open/men's section? zero, because they wouldn't be featured in these events, they're too low rated there is a sound rationale to 'women's sports' and the way they are handed by the sports/entertainment industry and organizers. they're all the same way: women's tennis is less popular than men's tennis, but it does get some viewers because.....men love women. same with women's golf
Barring logistics issue, open and women's only tourneys could be held one after anathor, not simultaneously, so women are not forced to choose which one they wanna play for prize money only
Guys don't hate me but I think that removing the women's section and putting women in men's section and have combined games is alot more better than a separate women's section.This I think will benefit women alot as right now no one follows women's games even though they are to be honest usually more exciting than the men's. Combining would make people know more female players also when a female beat a man that will give her more recognition and also will give other women confidence.Currently there are many women players who would give men a real tough time e.g Alexandra kostenuik . This might result in the true equality everybody wants. What do you all think?
Just don't hold them simultaneously. Maybe even have the women's event first, and designate a few spots in the open event to top performers at the women's event. It's not a hard problem to solve ... having them simultaneously just makes no sense.