Chess is a feminist issue.

In the UK chess is mixed at most levels, but very few women play. What we are talking about here is encouraging more female players to enter or stay in chess. (Under represented group). There are very few female only tournaments except at junior level.
One friend's daughter who played chess in the family started a new school and went along to the chess club there. It was all boys and she wouldn't go back, even though she loved chess. It's all to do with numbers. If the club had been all girls and a lone boy had turned up the result might well have been the same.

Well, there you go! More evidence that female-only spaces serve a purpose...

Slightly off topic, but are you all aware of the allegations of sexual assault which are now circulating on Twitter and the ECF Forum? I'm amazed that this hasn't had more publicity yet - may definitely a Me Too moment for the chess world.

I asked someone I know who knows the people involved. His response was "oh, everyone knew about it".

What is cruel and prejudiced about it? As you say, let females have this space. What is supposedly cruel and prejudiced about it?

I'm not sure the top 200 who have made it through are best placed to comment on why (most) girls leave.

And for the record I'm not against girls only events that promote female involvement (I actually agree with much of what Susan poulgar says). However if we think that's what's happening in the UK with the junior league being segregated by gender we need a rethink.

From memory when competing in county tournaments, you should reach a sensible competition within your first three games. Quicker if it isnt your first tournament and you're already ranked.

@Icedlatteplease but the vast majority of the world's say top 200 women players would disagree with you, and agree with Susan Polgar. The experience of initiatives such as the She Plays to Win charity also strongly supports the value of girls-only events.

Someone posted above a statistic of 40 percent of chess playing primary school children being girls. In my (extensive) experience this is way too optimistic. And even fewer of those who play in school, are likely to enter competitions outside of school.

What puts children off competitive chess is playing in competitions where they are out of their depth. We dont notice the boys who score 0/5 or 1/6 and then drop out, because there are so many of them! But if the handful of (often less confident, more easily intimidated by little boys who turn up at the board saying "I'm going to kill you!") drop out after their first two or three competitions, there are barely any girls left.

It doesn't actually matter whether your 6 or 8 year old girl plays in open or girls events to start with. Becoming a good chess player is about seeking appropriate competitive challenges - any child who shows some ability has to learn this and find their level in suitably chosen events. For the best girls, this means sooner or later starting to play in mixed events (and in adult competitions).

I am sorry your daughter was put off by her experiences. However, there are at least as many if not more who feel that the mixed/girls events set up we have is the right way forward at present.

Thanks for the article link @ArabeIIaKarenScott

@NeighbourhoodWatchPotholeDivision , I don’t think it does at all actually. But I do think we’re talking crossing purposes.

Sure, I can absolutely see why there needs to be a targeted recruitment into the sport for young girls in the same way there is for boys, and certainly efforts towards equity to have them competing in sport in the first place. Nothing against girls clubs either.

But when talking about competing, I can understand that if women were never given the opportunity early on to practice and compete as men did, they may feel they won’t be as skilled and therefore need to compete at a less elite level. When other discriminated demographic groups (I’m not speaking re:trans) aren’t given the same opportunity they don’t get to play at all.

If women’s competitive group is a place were those who were disadvantaged by lack of opportunities go to play, not because their potential is less than a man’s, but their training opportunity has been lower quality and therefore their game is just got as good, is this not just a less superior chess group to men?

The fact still remains that if women don’t challenge the ‘elite male’, the 98% elite will remain male, the coaches remain male, the whole structure remains supporting males and the beat goes on. I do hope there’ll be more funding to create equality of opportunity for girls so they can compete equally.

@Icedlatteplease

I would not deliberately expose young girls to sexism in chess. I would build up their self esteem and confidence, so that when they do encounter sexism later on in open competition (and in life), they have the confidence to challenge it and the resilience to recover from setbacks due to sexism or misogyny.

One of the best ways to increase the confidence and resilience of girls is through competitive sport, like football. Or a competitive pastime, like chess. They learn to work hard, apply themselves and enjoy the success that their hard work brings them. They learn to analyse their own performances and to value constructive criticism. They develop faith in their own judgement. They also learn from failure, not to be discouraged by it. To speak up if they are unhappy about something. It's tough enough to learn all that, to go against the messages society is giving you, without throwing nasty boys, sexual assaults and misogynistic officials into the mix. The boys don't have to deal with all that (except maybe the nasty boys bit) so why should the girls? You're not going to encourage young girls to take up chess or stick with it if you make it an unwelcoming environment - an environment unwelcoming specifically to girls. Most girls don't start out tough and determined and all the other things Susan Polgar clearly is, but in the right environment - a boy-free, sexism-free environment, they learn to be all these things. They're not feminist warriors at this stage, they're just girls who think chess might be fun to learn.

Some of those unsupportive comments in the article sound just like you! 😂I don't know why you think they were all from women, since anyone of either sex can read the article, but in any case sexism and misogyny are belief systems which men or women, boys or girls, can hold.

We aren't teaching girls they can't succeed in open competition. Some of the girls will be encouraged to go on and compete successfully in that arena. FIDE are providing a space to nourish and develop the girls and inculcate the love of the game in them. Because of the way society treats them, girls and boys do not start off on a level playing field. This carve-out is a way to even things up.

I was glad to see that Polgar mentioned female coaches because I think they are especially vital. The England Lionesses (European champions in football) said this in their open letter to the government last year:

We ask you and your government to ensure that all girls have access to a minimum of 2 hours a week PE. Not only should we be offering football to all girls, we also need to invest in and support female PE teachers too. Their role is crucial and we need to give them the resources to provide girls' football sessions. They are key role models from which so many young girls can flourish.

Leah Williamson (captain of England Women) has also said:
...All of my coaches were incredible along the way. I could have had a terrible experience playing for a boys' team aged six but my first coach made sure it was a experience I want to relive over and over!

I've no idea what that neurosexism accusation is about. One of the first things Susan Polgar says is that she believes that girls can become just as proficient as boys at chess - and she has proved it over and over as have her protegees.

Susan Polgar is an absolute heroine for giving back in this way. I am blown away by her generosity. And I've no doubt her strength of character was forged from her career as a chess player - facing challenges while being supported by her wonderful family and her mentors. All girls who want the same should be able to have it - the game and the support.

excerpt

“Why is there a need for Girl’s or Women’s tournaments?”

This is probably one of the top 5 questions I have most often been asked over the past 15 years, since creating the Susan Polgar Foundation in 2002.

I would like to walk you through some history and then explain to you some challenges girls / women face in chess. But before we start down this journey, I want to make one thing abundantly clear. I have not changed my point of view. I do strongly believe that if given equal opportunities, women are just as capable in chess, and many other STEM fields, as are men. However, I still adamantly believe that there is a serious need for SOME “girls only” or “women only” events.

One of the first accomplishments of my foundation was to successfully lobby the US Chess Federation (USCF) to allow me and my foundation to organize all-girls events. I personally fought for this, and through other initiatives as well, to get more girls in chess. Up until my fight, there were no all-girls tournaments in the United States. I faced many objections and challenges to this idea. A number of the chess politicians really believed that it was a bad idea to “encourage” more girls to play chess, or to provide them with “opportunities” to excel in chess. Some even went out of their way to express their beliefs that it is “cruel and unusual punishment” to introduce girls to chess. They are not bad people but that is what they believed or just how they felt. Unfortunately, some people still feel the same way today.

In 2003, the Susan Polgar National Invitational for Girls, which is now SPF Girl’s Invitational (SPFGI), became the first ever all-girls’ event approved and sanctioned by the USCF, after more than a year of lobbying and countless meetings. It was my dream to revolutionize chess for young people, especially girls. I believe with all my heart that chess can and will help children of all ages, in many different aspects. Naturally, some will want to take chess seriously, maybe to become grandmasters, or even World or Olympiad Champions. But for most, chess will be a fun game which can teach them many valuable life lessons. This is important to me.

The first ever Susan Polgar National Invitational for Girls took place in 2004. Many young ladies who took part in this annual event went on to college, have families, and wonderful careers. Many became doctors, lawyers, mathematicians, engineers, bankers, entrepreneurs, etc. Some are starting to teach their own children how to play chess.

Because of the recognized value of the SPFGI, today there are countless all-girls tournaments and girls’ chess initiatives across the country. Not only do more girls participate in chess than ever before, but the level also went up dramatically! SPFGI remains the top, all-girls chess event in the world, with over $207,500 in scholarships and cash prizes in 2017, and with a budget of about $250,000. Unfortunately, many young girls and their parents today do not know the history and what it took to change the chess culture in this country.

First, even though we are in the 21st century, there is still a social stigma, according to which, girls are not supposed to want to become firefighters, mathematicians, engineers, or (yes!) chess players, etc. Many parents do not recognize that they are inadvertently feeding into this by giving their daughters stereotypical girl-toys, such as Barbie dolls, make-up and other “girly” toys.

For those parents (or teachers) who believe that girls can be anything they want to be, they face an uphill battle and a lot of extra obstacles (and expenses) in the chess world (just as in other male-dominated fields). It starts out with the serious difficulty in finding female chess coaches. There is a tremendous shortage. Some ask why the need for a female coach. There are several valid reasons, besides mentorship. For example, while a male coach may take a male student to an out-of-town competition and share a room, most parents of girls would never consent to the same. Therefore, even if they would allow their teenage daughters to travel with the male coaches, they would need to get a second hotel room which is a significant extra expense. Let’s say a hotel room with taxes is $100-150 a night, and most serious events would range from 6-11 days, you can do the math.

Secondly, boys / men are on average more aggressive and competitive. At a younger age, girls often face demeaning and insulting comments such as “chess is not for girls”, “girls cannot play chess”, or “you’re stupid”, etc. For the girls who survive the early difficult years and still remain in chess, things get worse during the adolescent years. An even bigger and more dangerous issue looms larger. While 90% of guys at most chess tournaments (or in chess clubs) may behave as perfect gentlemen, there is about a 10% who behave very disrespectfully towards women, especially when they have had a few drinks.

During my career, I had numerous occasions from personal experience where various male chess players made me feel awfully uncomfortable, and very unsafe, by making unsolicited and unwanted sexual advances. At times, they refused to take “NO” for an answer. On a few occasions, I was even extremely fearful for my physical safety. Sadly, many of my female chess- playing colleagues have similar stories to mine. This is why during my early years, I rarely dressed up or wore make-up. I did not want to stand out and be a bigger target. While many women want to look better, I “chose” to be less attractive.

This is why I am so thankful that my parents have sacrificed a lot (and not just financially) to accompany me to most of my out-of-town chess competitions even into my 20’s. This is an issue that most guys rarely, if ever, face. Given the gross disproportion of men versus women at most open chess tournaments, this is a serious issue that can make girls/ women feel uncomfortable, distracted, and in fact, for many girls to the degree that they give up chess all together.

Even today, when women are more accepted in chess compared to when I started out in the 1970’s, these problems still continue. For example, when I recently made a complaint about a certain male chess player, not only did the organizer ignore my warnings (implying that it is a non-issue), but they went ahead and spent more money to promote this person. Many in the chess world know who the “trouble makers” who demean, insult, and abuse women are, but nothing is done about it. To make it worse, those trouble makers in their circles get high-fives and praises for their despicable actions. Some of them compete to see who can “score” more.

These are some of the main reasons why I feel that it is very important for young girls, as well as for women to have also SOME female-only events. This is where they do not have to deal with all the above mentioned possible distractions and uncomfortable situations as we often face in open events. Also, such all-girl events serve as wonderful bonding experience, especially for younger girls, where they encourage each other to stay in chess instead of quitting.

Thirdly, even when a few blossomed, they are being punished and pushed down. When I became the #1 ranked female chess player in the world at age 15, some chess politicians could not accept this unprecedented success. They wanted to punish me for wanting to be as strong as the boys by competing only in open tournaments with boys and men. They wanted to make an example of me to discourage others from following my footsteps.

continues Why is there a need for girls' or women's tournaments?

So many problems...

@RebelliousCow
The idea there is any difference in male and female brains has long since been de bunked example here. Any perceived differences are likely to be because of ingrained sociatal prejudice. It is a misconception that was symptomatic of the entrenched sexism encountered by both myself and my daughter on the chess circuit. And we wonder why bright girls might not what to continue in an social situation where they are considered inferior unable to achieve equally because if their "female brain".

@FraterculaArctica

When you are registering at your first tournament at 6-8 years old and you approach the table do you think that you are likely to say "well actually I'm going to register for the boys tournament" or as a boy "actually I'm joining the girls"... for that matter do you think those registering people even offer that choice

@Snowypeaks

Why are we isolating girls so they don't encounter sexism? Why aren't we challenging sexism?

Why are we teaching girls they can't possibly succeed in mixed competition?

Why are we assuming it's the boys alone expressing the sexism given the all above comments were, I assume, expressed by women?

Thatcat

Maybe you should try talking to female chess players about the issue then.

Or at least read that article by Susan Polgar that has just been linked. It more than counters all your points.

Fair point @FraterculaArctica.
I’m not a competitive player and haven’t spoken to women on the issue.

But I don’t have to have written a thesis on chess to know women’s sport is always regarded as subpar and secondary to men’s. We’ll always be physically different in terms of strength for physical sport. Intellectual/mental/tactical sport, we are equal, yet men take that elite trophy too, because they remain unchallenged by elite women.

If the argument is that women essentially feel safer playing other women, then fine - their choice. But that is also a choice to not achieve your full potential because of your gender. I still think that’s codswallop.

If we let this play out in life, we’d never go to work with men, where most of us at some point or another had been intimidated/bullied/treated as a lesser being. We shouldn’t have to of course, but experience has shown the only way over it is through it.

I can think of ONE junior competition (the UK schools chess challenge) which is genuinely segregated, i.e. the boys section is boys and not open. Any junior serious about chess will only be playing in this as one of many different types of competition.

I don't know how it's organised at junior or senior level but I would have thought it's like single sex schools - girls will do better learning from and competing with other girls. And they would be away from negative comments about boys being better. Anyway, we'll see how it goes, won't we?

If your told that the best girls aren't as good as the best boys. If the best boys are consistently given the better ranked trainer for example. Girls will go in with a more confident mindset when faced with a female than a male.

With apologies I meant to clarify I was referring to the juniors

I can appreciate why the idea of segregating for that purpose is theoretically beneficial.

It just doesn't always come over that way.

My jaw absolutely dropped at comments made at junior championships that were considered absolutely normal (And tbf i heard more because i was allowed in the main tournament rooms due to DS's sen). I personally didn't consider it a particularly healthy environment for a young girl. And of course the nature of chess is that if you dont catch them young and they dont therefore engage in the training and practice they are unlikely to achieve the same chess abilities as the boys that have.

Doesn't matter if you allow equal competition at adulthood if youve lost the potential female grand masters at primary.

The sex divide is being engrained in.

Banning transwomen in female sports where there is absolutely no inbuilt benefit to being a man is sending entirely the wrong impression

Juniors were certainly segregated. The attitudes I discussed came from the juniors.

The attitudes presented made the whole system seem fundamentally old fashioned.

I believe women can compete with men at chess if they want, it's just that there is a separate women's league as the disparity between men and women coming anywhere near the top was so great. Research has shown women play better when they believe they're playing against a woman even though the difficulty level is the same (it was via an online game) which is interesting. Seems there are a lot of reasons as to why men are more prolific, successful and better at chess typically than women.

I fully support the need for a female category to encourage women and girls to compete.

In the meantime, this has been an interesting discussion to follow on Twitter.

Carole Hoovlet on Twitter. 20.51 17/8/23

I'm quote-tweeting this because my initial response generated a lot of discussion and I want to get it right. (FYI my dissertation was on sex differences in spatial ability, so I'm sure that's biased my view of this issue.)

It's funny that I asked for help from Chris Chabris @cfchabris on this sex differences in chess question, because he's a highly ranked chess player and an expert in intelligence. And he thanked me for "helpful conversations" in his 2006 paper on this very topic (below). Which I admit to forgetting about (the paper, and the fact that I helped him with it in some way).

Chris and Mark Glickman found that the larger pool of male chess players appears to contribute to, or even explain the male advantage (someone on here suggested this). But why are males more interested in chess in the first place? Many non-spatial factors contribute to chess success, including other aspects of cognition, but also interest in the activity, desire to stick with it (over the course of a single game or longer), drive to win, etc, and a sex difference in any of these areas could play a role in the male advantage. We don't have great research on the various contributions, or their origins. So in my original tweet, I may have overstated the importance of spatial ability to the male advantage (as I commented right after I posted that tweet!).

The important thing is that if a girl (or woman) is motivated to learn and excel at chess, she will improve with practice and if she loves it, she should play her heart out! She might even beat many men or even become a chess master.

But in any event: even if biology is not found to be a strong contributor to the sex difference, particularly given we don't know the cause of the male advantage, the fact that it exists is reason enough to keep the female category for females, which is the best way to give females a chance to win.

journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01828.x?casa_token=fFrGmtb8zqEAAAAA%3A0fTQs-UkjhKnTO2yaiJUhmy9yNQrXLPr1kEsInDbNuzvP0jm0CTTM71EFzSyZXvprf19L9V-cpbv&journalCode=pssa

twitter.com/hoovlet/status/1692262830219596050?s=12

It isn’t quite as cut and dried that there is no testosterone advantage. The research is ongoing.

Ah right, so s.158. I really must stop seeing everything through the lens of sport!

This is an initiative intended to grow the pool of talented women players.

As always, the trans identity is not the issue - it's being male which makes men claiming to be women in ineligible for competitions which are intended to encourage women and girls to play and give them a taste for success.

Any women who are good enough can enter open competitions alongside the men/men claiming to be women.

@Thatcat you say you "don't have the headspace to look up the justification for keeping a separate women's competition..." but then you immediately follow up.by saying it's "codswallop" to do so.

There is a valid debate to be had about whether retaining separate women's competitions (alongside open competitions, in which virtually all female players also compete) is the right way forward. But this debate is not helped by those who have not done any background research, or talked with any chess players, leaping in with an opinion.

I don't think they are relying on the gender-affected sport exception. It's "positive action" to increase participation of an underrepresented group that shares a protected characteristic.