Recently the U.S. mens' and womens' chess championships were concluded. Is there any legitimate reason why in this enlightened age women still have to have their own championship? Women are obviously as intelligent, not to mention as competitive, as men. If it were a physical activity where strength were involved, it might begin to make sense, but since chess is a mental activity, what's the point of having separate venues for men and women? Judit Polgar, who to her credit would not participate in womens' tournaments, has proven the folly of this apparently sexist practice. Why aren't the powers that be paying attention?
2
-
4I could be wrong, but I don't believe there is a "men's chess championship". As i understand it, there is a "chess championship" (for players of any gender) and a "women's chess championship". As to why there are women's championships, I don't know, but my guess is that they were instituted in an effort to increase women's participation in organized chess.– bofCommented Jul 3, 2017 at 3:30
-
1Checkout chess.stackexchange.com/questions/6282/…. It ask basically the same question. You will get basically the same answers.– Brian Towers ♦Commented Jul 3, 2017 at 9:30
Add a comment
|
1 Answer
As like there is 'Under 18', 'Zone', 'District', 'State', 'Country', 'Continent' people can be partitioned into different categories.
If there is no category, there will be same winners and any game will be boring to watch/play.
It is not superiority of any gender or category for the game of chess.
As bof said in comment it can be an effort to increase women's participation in organised chess.
And in general it is just a category(named female in gender) of players allowed to play for the championship.
