Tweet
The Women’s Chess System – Finally Time to Abolish It?
Below is an article from the Canadian Toronto Chess News (TCN) of November 1, 2012, of which I am the editor. I am also the author of the article published. What do you think on this issue? Let us know by posting your comments. Here is the article:
“Editorial Analysis
Chess has a very open and egalitarian system – men vs women; boys vs girls; youth vs older; rich vs poor; nationality vs nationality; higher-rated vs lower-rated. In a word, the system is “inclusive” – all can participate.
But what do we see existing right beside it? – a parallel, exclusive all-women’s separate system. And this is both at the female adult and girls’ levels.
Do women still need this enclave? If it was once critical, is there still in 2012 a need for it? Has it served its purpose, so that it can be consigned to the junk heap of history, having now accomplished what it was supposed to?
If it has not yet achieved its goal, will it ever?
Below is an article written by me, not as editor, but as a CFC Life Member, musing about the situation. After you read it, send in your answers to my questions in the preceding paragraph, and give reasons. TCN is trying to keep an open mind on the topic ( one might say there is a slight conflict of interest here ). Any general comments will also be most welcome. It will be interesting to see if there has been any shift in modern times away from support for the “separate women’s parallel system”.
Article - The Women’s Chess System
( by Bob Armstrong, CFC Life Member )
In sports where physical prowess is a main factor in success, such as tennis, a separate system for women, generally physically inferior, makes sense – they cannot compete on an equal footing with men at the very top levels, and often lower as well.
But is this true of chess?
It is true that tournament chess is very physically taxing, and consumes a large amount of energy. But in this type of physical regime, it seems to me men and women are equal – both are up to the task at the same level.
So what then is the reason for the entirely separate parallel system, when the open system is available and inclusive?
Two main reasons are often given ( and other arguments may also exist ):
1. Chess Culture – Because chess historically is so male-dominated, the chess culture itself is very macho. This is not women-friendly, and as a result it is exceptionally difficult to get women to spend their time and energy in what is almost a hostile environment. A female chess culture is needed to initially draw women into chess, into a comfortable and friendly atmosphere, where they can take up the difficult challenge that is competitive chess. A parallel women’s chess system provides this. Eventually, those women who are successful, will get the desire to do better and to improve, and will voluntarily take on the open chess culture, in their quest to become the best they can become – and this will involve much more play against stronger male opponents.
2. Unequal Development – Women, historically, have not been encouraged to play chess. Consequently the pool of women players has been much smaller than that of male players, and so in the same age range, the chance of more stronger players in the male pool is expected. Consequently, resources have tended to be spent on the elite players in the open system, mostly male. Girls/women traditionally have not had chess coaches, not been on competitive chess teams, not had outside financial support, and have had limited opportunity to play many strong opponents in their own peer group. So women’s level of chess achievement has generally been lower than men’s ( Judit Polgar of Hungary is one of the rare exceptions, coming from an exceptional chess family ). To encourage girls/women to enjoy chess and to strive for higher achievement, there must be female role models. So there must be a series of awards, and “ champions “ proportionate to women’s achievement levels. This produces women’s “ champions ” to be emulated, women’s titles to strive for. Those women who wish to progress further will migrate to the open system.
Do these two reasons satisfy you as to why we still need TODAY a separate, parallel women’s system? Are there other arguments, stronger or less strong, that also justify the women’s system? When I started tournament chess 45 years ago, this was an issue. The vast majority supported the system. In 2008, in the then Scarborough Chess Club newsletter, and also posted on the Chess ‘n Math Association chess discussion board, Chesstalk, I did a lengthy article on the arguments on both sides. I got then a more divided response, though the majority still supported the system. I admittedly had some trouble determining the views of female chess players themselves. After almost one-half a century, I think it is time to take the pulse of the issue again. Are we now at the point where this system is no longer necessary, and women can take their place in the open system? Has it served its purpose, and put itself out of a job?
Is it in fact now a “ hindrance ” to the chess development of girls/women? A recent ChessBase article noted: “ Why is there just one woman in the top 100 players on the FIDE rating list, and why are just 2.2 percent of the top 1000 players female? ” This is the result of the separate system after over ½ century of experimentation? One has to conclude it is not working, no? Women are not being helped by this system. In fact, one might wonder whether the separate women’s system may be the CAUSE of these dismal stats ?
TCN Invitation
Let TCN know what you think on this issue. Let us know if you are a women, girl or parent of a girl chess player – we’d especially like to hear your opinions. We will publish our readers’ submissions, to keep the discussion going, and to see if the majority perspective on this issue has changed over the last half century.”
Bob A ( TCN Editor )
Below is an article from the Canadian Toronto Chess News (TCN) of November 1, 2012, of which I am the editor. I am also the author of the article published. What do you think on this issue? Let us know by posting your comments. Here is the article:
“Editorial Analysis
Chess has a very open and egalitarian system – men vs women; boys vs girls; youth vs older; rich vs poor; nationality vs nationality; higher-rated vs lower-rated. In a word, the system is “inclusive” – all can participate.
But what do we see existing right beside it? – a parallel, exclusive all-women’s separate system. And this is both at the female adult and girls’ levels.
Do women still need this enclave? If it was once critical, is there still in 2012 a need for it? Has it served its purpose, so that it can be consigned to the junk heap of history, having now accomplished what it was supposed to?
If it has not yet achieved its goal, will it ever?
Below is an article written by me, not as editor, but as a CFC Life Member, musing about the situation. After you read it, send in your answers to my questions in the preceding paragraph, and give reasons. TCN is trying to keep an open mind on the topic ( one might say there is a slight conflict of interest here ). Any general comments will also be most welcome. It will be interesting to see if there has been any shift in modern times away from support for the “separate women’s parallel system”.
Article - The Women’s Chess System
( by Bob Armstrong, CFC Life Member )
In sports where physical prowess is a main factor in success, such as tennis, a separate system for women, generally physically inferior, makes sense – they cannot compete on an equal footing with men at the very top levels, and often lower as well.
But is this true of chess?
It is true that tournament chess is very physically taxing, and consumes a large amount of energy. But in this type of physical regime, it seems to me men and women are equal – both are up to the task at the same level.
So what then is the reason for the entirely separate parallel system, when the open system is available and inclusive?
Two main reasons are often given ( and other arguments may also exist ):
1. Chess Culture – Because chess historically is so male-dominated, the chess culture itself is very macho. This is not women-friendly, and as a result it is exceptionally difficult to get women to spend their time and energy in what is almost a hostile environment. A female chess culture is needed to initially draw women into chess, into a comfortable and friendly atmosphere, where they can take up the difficult challenge that is competitive chess. A parallel women’s chess system provides this. Eventually, those women who are successful, will get the desire to do better and to improve, and will voluntarily take on the open chess culture, in their quest to become the best they can become – and this will involve much more play against stronger male opponents.
2. Unequal Development – Women, historically, have not been encouraged to play chess. Consequently the pool of women players has been much smaller than that of male players, and so in the same age range, the chance of more stronger players in the male pool is expected. Consequently, resources have tended to be spent on the elite players in the open system, mostly male. Girls/women traditionally have not had chess coaches, not been on competitive chess teams, not had outside financial support, and have had limited opportunity to play many strong opponents in their own peer group. So women’s level of chess achievement has generally been lower than men’s ( Judit Polgar of Hungary is one of the rare exceptions, coming from an exceptional chess family ). To encourage girls/women to enjoy chess and to strive for higher achievement, there must be female role models. So there must be a series of awards, and “ champions “ proportionate to women’s achievement levels. This produces women’s “ champions ” to be emulated, women’s titles to strive for. Those women who wish to progress further will migrate to the open system.
Do these two reasons satisfy you as to why we still need TODAY a separate, parallel women’s system? Are there other arguments, stronger or less strong, that also justify the women’s system? When I started tournament chess 45 years ago, this was an issue. The vast majority supported the system. In 2008, in the then Scarborough Chess Club newsletter, and also posted on the Chess ‘n Math Association chess discussion board, Chesstalk, I did a lengthy article on the arguments on both sides. I got then a more divided response, though the majority still supported the system. I admittedly had some trouble determining the views of female chess players themselves. After almost one-half a century, I think it is time to take the pulse of the issue again. Are we now at the point where this system is no longer necessary, and women can take their place in the open system? Has it served its purpose, and put itself out of a job?
Is it in fact now a “ hindrance ” to the chess development of girls/women? A recent ChessBase article noted: “ Why is there just one woman in the top 100 players on the FIDE rating list, and why are just 2.2 percent of the top 1000 players female? ” This is the result of the separate system after over ½ century of experimentation? One has to conclude it is not working, no? Women are not being helped by this system. In fact, one might wonder whether the separate women’s system may be the CAUSE of these dismal stats ?
TCN Invitation
Let TCN know what you think on this issue. Let us know if you are a women, girl or parent of a girl chess player – we’d especially like to hear your opinions. We will publish our readers’ submissions, to keep the discussion going, and to see if the majority perspective on this issue has changed over the last half century.”
Bob A ( TCN Editor )
Comment