Tim Spanton wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 7:09 am
The logic is straightforward. Either women players are inferior and so deserve inferior titles, or they are equally good and deserve not to be patronised by largely male administrators awarding them inferior titles.
I think the truth is a little more complicated than this. Women's titles were introduced at various times from 1950 ("Woman Masters" now known as WIMs), to the 1970s (WGM, WFM), to 2002 (WCM). In the 1950s and 1970s, it is clear that women were not reliably permitted to attend what were then men's tournaments, and so opportunities for women to gain the ranking points required for GM or IM were limited. Indeed as late as 1986 FIDE increased the ratings of all female players (except Susan Polgár) by 100 in an attempt to correct for the fact that no other women played in men's tournaments. We know that Polgár qualified for the 1987 men's world championship interzonal tournament but was blocked from playing due to her gender. She became the first female grandmaster in 1991. [Edit: the third, and first to do so by fulfilling the same norm requirements as male grandmasters.]
Women's titles are not a comfortable thing for us to be living with for the reasons you have pointed out, but they bring benefits such as the recognition of female players' achievements and the promotion of women's chess. There are women's national champions who can claim the title WCM well below the rating requirement. And still today, there are elite female players who prefer to play mainly women's chess, with the prospect of winning championships that brings. My personal view is that women's tournaments at club level are a useful tool for encouraging participation and improving community, and I am glad to recognise a WCM or WFM's achievements as significant. What I would prefer is to play open tournaments with a good gender balance, but it happens rarely -- the summer tournament at Battersea in which we both participated being a sign of progress at 23% female participation.
There will be a time when consensus among female players shifts regarding the usefulness of women's titles. I don't think we have reached that point yet, with only forty female grandmasters (of whom thirty-two are active) and as of 2020, a worldwide female participation rate of just 12%. The
2020 study by Wei Ji Ma suggests that population size can account for much of the rating discrepancy when considering the most elite male and female players only. There have occasionally been players such as Menchik and the Polgárs capable of beating the best players in the world in their eras, and I believe strongly that increasing participation will help us address the unfortunate present reality both statistically and in terms of conduct. Until then, we aren't ready to abandon the tools that are helping us make progress.
