FIDE, the international governing body for Chess is the organization that gives out various titles, like Grandmaster, International Master, etc. They also have Women’s titles of Woman Grandmaster and Woman International Master. Why the distinction? Chess clearly is a competition of brains, not muscle, so why the need to differentiate the women?
**
Simply because with very few exceptions (e.g. the Polgar sisters), women have never achieved the same proficiency at chess as have their male counterparts. Look at the rating difference between the women’s world chess champion and the men’s to get an idea of the gap. I agree that it is deplorable, as there is no reason for women to be worse at this than men. However, the fact of the matter is, were female titles removed there would be very few top-flight female grandmasters. Judit Polgar is the only woman that springs to mind who can compete with the top men on a regular basis, and even she is clearly not in the same category as the true Super GMs.
To go further, from http://www.fide.com…
Participants in the 2000 World Chess Cup:
**
Heck, #13, Amelie Payet…2010 is about the strength of a fairly strong local chess player. I can beat people of that level a little under 50% of the time. (Well, ok, admittedly USCF ratings are more inflated than FIDE ones.)
The men, on the other hand:
**
Less than 2600 in this tournament for a man is very rare, for a woman it’s the norm. In top level chess, this difference can be huge.
Out of curiousity what are Deep Blue and Kasparov rated on this scale?
Hmm, I am sure someone somewhere calculated a rating estimate for Deep Blue, but I don’t know where to find it offhand. Kasparov is an incredible 2849. Vladimir Kramnik is next best at 2770. On the FIDE rating list there is only one woman over 2600, Judit Polgar.
Sources:
So, on which scale is Deep Blue ranked, being neither male nor female? Perhaps IBM should be shooting for a World Championship in the non-male category?
For what it’s worth, the vast gulf between the top male players and the top female players is generally thought to reflect a lack of interest by women, not a lack of ability. There’s fewer women over 2600, say, but then, there’s fewer women in chess, period.
Slight hijack: Where did Bobby F. rate? And how does he make a living these days?
If I remember correctly, (I was just a teenager at the time) Bobby Fischer was the first person to be rated over 2800.
At the height of his skills, he was pretty much unrateable. He was so good that he could win at will against anybody. In the candidate matches leading up to his World Championship, he won something like 9 or 10 games in a row against his opponents. These were among the best ten players in the world. Against Spassky,(The then world champ) he only lost two games out of the twenty four in their match. (Not counting the game he forfeited.)
There really was no one in his league. Too bad he was such a flake.
end of highjack
Fischer was extremely good at his height, though whether he was more dominating in the 70’s than Kasparov is now is open to debate. Suffice to say no one could probably beat either of them in any match of reasonable length. I believe he reached 2815 at his peak rating, going from memory though. I’m not sure if he has to make a living nowadays, he made quite a bit of money from his rematch with Spassky a few years back. He seems to be hanging out in South America mostly, promoting “Fischer-Random” chess, in which the pieces on the first rank are set up randomly, within a few rules. He’s…pretty crazy nowadays, at least according to people like Larry Evans, who knew him when he was playing seriously and still seem to sort of keep track of his whereabouts.
Oh, one more thing…
**
Well, they were among the best two players in the world, as there were only two of them, Mark Taimonov and Bent Larson. I know he swept Taimonov in five straight games, he either swept or thoroughly trounced Larson too.
Darnit, why can’t I remember everything all at once…I think the two matches were six games, not five. Sorry. At least I’m raising the ol’ post count.
Correct, these matches required six victories to prevail. I think Fischer did lose or draw to Larson.
Oh, and the world championship match with Spassky went 21 games, not 24, if I recall correctly. The match was scheduled to be “best of 24”, or 12 1/2 points to win (1 point for win, 1/2 point for draw).
Petrosian (sp?) was one of them also.
If I remember correctly, (things were getting convoluted, the rules were changeing almost every cycle) there were six qualifiers out of the two Interzonel tournaments. These six, plus the loser of the previous World Championship Match, plus another automatic qualifier (I don’t remember who, may be the previous world champion?) were all put into the candidates matches. That comes to eight, plus the current champ equals nine. So, the top ten was a rough approximation.
> generally thought to reflect a lack of interest by women, not a lack of ability.
But clearly the women listed here are interested, no?
What exactly are these numbers; how are they calculated?
Why is there less interest among women?
Why less interest amonst women? For the same reason that there are less women mathematicians, for example.
My explanation would be that women are still discouraged by society, starting at an early age, to engage in those kinds of professions or career paths. Go take a look at the “boys’ section” and “girls’ section” of your local toystore to see an example of how society views the different roles of men and women.
But couldn’t you make the same argument with respect to african americans? And I don’t think anyone would think a Black Grandmaster designation to be a very good idea.
I think that in general chess gained its vast popularity as a european (and perhaps indian game), which is why most of the grandmasters are from those social groups (people of european or indian descent). Of course this is a general impression on my part, which may or may not represent the true reasons.
**
Here’s an explanation of the Elo Rating system, it’s fairly understandable but not really worth its own explanation when a link will do: http://www.uschess.org/ratings/info/system.html
**
It would have helped if I had been alive then, as it is I’m only going from memory on what I’ve read. Now I’m going to actually have to look it up. The system was in constant flux from the 1950’s until after Karpov became the champion, going from a tournament style qualifying system to matches, with various refinements each cycle it seemed. The last FIDE world championship was a joke really, but they went back to the tournament system. I believe you’re getting these various different systems somewhat intermingled, for example, I believe Tal was allowed to play several times in the candidates matches in the 50’s (maybe 60’s too) without strictly having qualified. Heh, looking it up I see I spelled “Larsen” incorrectly. Fischer did sweep both Larsen and Taimonov of them in 6 games. I’m annoyed that I didn’t remember that he played Petrosian in the candidates matches in '71 too. But those were the only people he played in the candidates matches. While there were more people, it was like a tournament of matches if I recall correctly, where you went on to the next round based on whether you won your six game match with your opponent. I’ll get cites on all this and post them sometime, I don’t have time now.