Should Women's Chess Titles Stay or Go?
A recent Wall Street Journal editorial in favor of abolishing women's titles in chess has generated a lot of discussion online. For a while now, this -- and similar issues, such as the necessity of female-only events in chess -- have simmered, becoming hot topics now and again whenever an article like this WSJ editorial pops up.
Reaction, not surprisingly, has been mixed. Some, like Russian GM Alexandra Kosteniuk, are strongly against taking away these titles, while Mig Greengard and others fall on the opposite side. Still others have made the point that the editorial's author, Barbara Jepson, is not a chess player herself, which may make her understanding of the issues involved less than ideal.
What is your take on women's chess titles? I honestly feel very ambivalent about them; while they do help promote strong female players who have yet to gain the equivalent "open" title (i.e., WGM vs. GM), they also lead to confusion, and can even promote the idea that lower standards are fine for woman, despite the fact that many women have proudly earned the GM and IM titles. As several other commentators have pointed out, though, women's tournaments are another issue entirely. While there shouldn't be too many of these events (I'm not sure anyone would like to see female players playing a schedule of tournaments that effectively keeps them separated from male players), these tournaments do help promote promising players, and from an early age give girls and young woman a more comfortable environment in which to develop their chess talent -- not to mention giving many girls more reasons to stay with chess, something I think most chess players would like to see.
Comments
I will say that most of the indoor games are based on talents which are intellectual in nature rather than power …so there is no harm in joint unisex events for them
Go. I’m for female-only events and women champs such as US or World, but women only titles have no meaning. You’re either an IM or GM or you’re not.
I am a senior now and don’t play much anymore, but in the day nothing would give me more pleasure that to defeat the extremely braggadocio macho type player I was often pitted against. I am sure I changed a few attitudes when the guys realized they could be beaten “by a girl.” Hopefully things have changed a lot, and young women today don’t have to put up with such nonsense. I don’t think it’s necessary to have separate women’s divisions, but they do that for the olympics, so why not? All it will do is encourage serious women players who want to play their male counterparts to dress for the role.
either you are a titled player or you are not… people can see you are a woman,like being an officer in the arm service they donot derfer to your gender,so your a master who happens to be of the opposite sex,good for you,as for having women only, certain things okay but you get into left handed only etc,andGOD knows where it goes from there?!
I think it should be decided by those it affects–the women chessplayers. Their voices should be heard, and be the primary factor in makibng the decision.
As the chess coach of an elementary school chess club, I can speak in favor of girls only tournaments for kids. I have encountered several girls over the years that are good chess players, but for some reason have self-confidence issues that impact them when playing against boys. The girls usually grow out of this by the time they hit middle school, but I am thankful for girls-only events for the younger kids.