I mean, chess makes the same supposition, that women need a separate league.
There are arguments that it promotes equality, that it’s more fair… but I think the reality is closer to “it would be embarrassing for a man to be beaten by a woman”.
There are arguments that it promotes equality, that it’s more fair… but I think the reality is closer to “it would be embarrassing for a man to be beaten by a woman”.
But it's a fair assumption considering how Kasparov treated Polgar.
The reality is simply that women would not stand a chance, with unbelievably few exceptions (and even they wouldn't have much of a chance). Do you also think that we have women's sports because it would be embarrassing for men to be beaten by a woman?
As with football, basketball, and other pursuits, in chess there are 13 year old boys who will beat the top women. Although in chess they're fractionally harder to find.
So no, it's not because men would be embarrassed that we have women's sports. It's so women (whose highest achievers probably would not rank in the top 100 million people on the planet if all men were offered the same opportunity to compete at such a low level for the money) can have a chance to win something.