Yet Another Cycling Forum
Off Topic => The Pub => The Sporting Life => Topic started by: Wowbagger on 27 April, 2015, 04:46:40 pm
-
The English Bridge Union has been granted leave for judicial review of the Sport England decision not to recognise bridge as a sport.
Arguing against the decision, Gallofent said there was an “absolutely clear bright line” between bridge, chess and currently recognised sports. In snooker or rifle-shooting, no one else could take your shot, she said. While in bridge, “somebody else could step up and play my cards for me in these sort of mind games”.
Kate Gallofent QC is representing Sport England, and I'd suggest they get a better barrister. I could quite easily step up and take a shot at snooker, and there's a chance that I might succeed with that one shot. There is virtually no chance of me building a break, though, because I don't have the skill. In the same way, there is a chance that a novice player might choose the right card to play, but to keep making the right decisions at every trick would be beyond them. That requires a level of skill that a novice cannot possibly have. It appears to me that Gallofent is arguing that there is no skill involved and that, of course, is utter bollocks.
-
Well I wouldn't allow any kind of card game or board game (sorry WoW that includes chess) as a "sport". I think that a "sport" has to involve at least some kind of physical excellence even if its just good hand to eye coordination like shooting.
-
I suspect that Gallofent's argument is that I, as a championship bridge player, could stand back and instruct the person holding my cards to play the ten of clubs, whereas, as a championship rifleman, I cannot stand back and instruct the person holding my rifle "up a bit, left a bit, FIRE!"
IOW, you can separate the mental excellence from the physical requirements of a "game," though not of a "sport."
-
Well I wouldn't allow any kind of card game or board game (sorry WoW that includes chess) as a "sport". I think that a "sport" has to involve at least some kind of physical excellence even if its just good hand to eye coordination like shooting.
Exactly.
(And I wouldnt allow shooting if we were starting from a clean sheet - but the Olympics have a heritage that includes the war/hunting stuff, so it will take a lot to shift it. )
-
JSabine, thanks for making that clearer.
We've already done to death the point about the IOC recognising both Chess and Bridge. That's not the issue here.
There's nothing, according to the EBU's barrister, in the Sport England charter which tells it only to cover physical sports. The key issue is about funding. There is no logical reason why one game of skill should be funded by the national body for such things and another not receive any funding. In international competition, England will not be able to compete on level terms (nearly said playing field) with foreign competitors in chess, bridge and other games of skill.
If it's accepted that other games are to be supported, then so should chess and bridge.
-
Believe whatever you like, Wow. Chess, bridge and other games are not sports and shouldn't be classified as such.
-
Believe whatever you like, Wow. Chess, bridge and other games are not sports and shouldn't be classified as such.
Why should some games/sports (the distinction is irrelevant for this question) which require skill and practice receive funding from an institution set up by government for precisely that purpose and others not?
-
The distinction between game and sport is the point. The response flows from that. Sport England shouldn't support a game, only sports.
-
If it's not a sport (which it's not) then a sporting body has no responsibility for it.
-
Bridge boxing?
...as a compromise.
-
The distinction between game and sport is the point. The response flows from that. Sport England shouldn't support a game, only sports.
The distinction between game and sport is irrelevant. Football is a game. And a sport. Physical exertion is what distinguishes sporting games and non- sporting games.
Chess (and Bridge) are no more a sport than Tiddlywinks. In fact, arguably less.
-
The distinction between game and sport is the point. The response flows from that. Sport England shouldn't support a game, only sports.
I wholeheartedly disagree. That is giving some areas of competition an undeserved elevated status over others.
Some people, for whatever reason, don't take well to physical "sports". There is no reason why physical competition should be given an artificial elitism over mental competition. I sincerely hope the EBU's judicial review is successful.
-
As before, "Believe what you like..." The elitism is real and justified.
-
As before, "Believe what you like..." The elitism is real and justified.
Sorry, that point is based purely on ignorance.
-
Bollocks. My preference is certainly not based on ignorance.
-
Telling me that physical competition is more worthwhile than mental competition, which is what I understand by your comment, is indeed based on ignorance. Are you telling me that when I teach kids football and some of them are good at it that what they are doing is more worthwhile than those who are good at chess?
If you have never been involved with the massively-trained, highly motivated competitors who are at the top of world chess and world bridge then of course you are ignorant of what's involved.
-
Chess and Bridge are mind games, where the ability to memorise patterns plays the key part. There's a bit of psychological too, getting not the opponents head, but they are not sports.
-
Wow:
The logical extension of your argument would be to ask how you intend to support those kids crap at football AND chess?
-
Memory plays some part in chess, as it does every other game, but calculation is more important. All competition involves a psychological element - during and outside the actual competition time itself. The most obvious example that springs to mind was the little by-play between Ronaldo and Rooney in the match between Portugal and England in which Rooney was sent off.
-
Wow:
The logical extension of your argument would be to ask how you intend to support those kids crap at football AND chess?
No it wouldn't. Some people dislike competition of all kinds. This discussion is purely about the relative validity of different types of competition.
-
Is it really? You ssaid:
The key issue is about funding. There is no logical reason why one game of skill should be funded by the national body for such things and another not receive any funding.
The funding comes from all our pockets. You need to convince us that your chess wunderkind deserve our cash.
Why shouldnt it be spent on Glee Bands; remedial english tuition; nurses; cyclepaths; or tax breaks for hard-working families?!?
-
You can make that argument if you want, and there are plenty of non-competitive activities that receive government funding - the Arts Council is a good example. I have no problem with "Sport England" changing its name to "Competitive England" to satisfy those who argue that chess isn't a sport. My argument is simply that it's a false distinction to support one competition which may involve some form of physical activity - e.g. darts - and not support another - e.g. chess - which almost certainly requires a far greater level of training* and practice quite simply because it's vastly more complex.
*Nearly all the top chess players worldwide have a programme of physical training because they know that if they re not properly fit they are not likely to perform as well as an opponent who is.
-
This discussion is purely about the relative validity of different types of competition.
I'm not sure that the discussion is about the relative validity of different types of competition, more about whether a body set up - or that believes it was set up - to support one type of competition should also be expected to support another.
Looking at the Sport England pages, they take their definition of "sport" or "sporting activity" from the Council of Europe’s European Sports Charter 1993, to wit:
Sport means all forms of physical activity which, through casual or organised participation aim at expressing or improving physical fitness and mental well-being forming social relationships or obtaining results in competition at all levels.
I'm not *wholly* convinced by the inclusion of the British Model Flying Association (https://www.bmfa.org/) among the governing bodies for "Air Sports," and while Caving, Rambling and Folk Dancing are undoubtedly physical activities I'm not certain I'd have immediately classed them as "sports," but no matter how worthy I think chess and bridge might be I wouldn't try to shoehorn them into that definition1 of sport.
*Nearly all the top chess players worldwide have a programme of physical training because they know that if they re not properly fit they are not likely to perform as well as an opponent who is.
That sort of physical activity not directly related to the game/sport doesn't count:
For the purposes of recognition, the Sports Councils will only consider the human physical skill and effort involved in playing the activity. Any physical effort and skill required to prepare for the activity to take place (e.g. preparation of playing fields, animal husbandry, travelling to and from a place where the activity is played) will not be taken into of consideration for the purposes of recognition.
1: Yes, yes, I know that the JR is basically about whether or not that definition is the right one to use ...
-
Surely the argument is about whether chess or bridge are worthy of public subsidy, rather than the relatively arbitrary categorisation of these and other pastimes as sport? I would generally tend to agree with the contention that, as they involve no extremes of physical activity or physical skill, they aren't sports - but, as others have pointed out, there are other 'sports' that don't satisfy those criteria. I see no problem with having a national 'games' council (or whatever title might least offend), if non-physical competitive activities were deemed worthy of national financial support. I would be interested to hear why they should be so supported.
-
Whereas I am wondering why people are suggesting that they should not.
I haven't been involved in chess organisation, as opposed to purely teaching, for about 10 years, but government grants were being made to the BCF (it changed its name to the ECF since then) through the Department of Education in those days. It was a very informal arrangement. The argument is that there should be no distinction between purely mind sports and other less cerebral ones, because competitors' expenses at the top level are not very different. The equipment costs a lot less than some sports, but more than others, but travel to international events costs just as much, as does employing trainers and coaches. If it is worthy of support, why not put that support on a firm footing alongside other areas of competition?
Events I organised were primarily aimed at children, but sometimes we would open the under 18 section to adults whilst having separate prizes for u18s, should adults take the main prizes. There were plenty of very strong players who would be off representing England, and occasionally other countries, who turned up to my events, and I used to charge an entry fee sufficient to support a prize structure generous enough to make a significant contribution to their costs. It was not uncommon for players to turn down international invitations because of cost. My son, who between the ages of 8 and 12 was one of the strongesst players in England in his age group, used his winnings over several years to finance a trip to St. Petersburg with a BCF party. From 12 onwards his progress did not keep up with his main rivals, and one reason was that he did not have access to the best coaches, because I couldn't afford them. Up to that point I had coached him, but I am not a strong enough player to have taken him further. It was very sad to watch him fall down the rankings. He may have done so anyway, but knowing that players he used to beat regularly were getting levels of coaching that was not available to him, and using skills acquired in that that coaching to beat him in tournaments, was an extremely strong demotivator. Having some finance in place to support players like him would have gone some way to levelling the platyng field.
-
I would rather see chess and bridge in the Olympics than wrestling, I mean ffs ::-)
-
The distinction between game and sport is the point. The response flows from that. Sport England shouldn't support a game, only sports.
I wholeheartedly disagree. That is giving some areas of competition an undeserved elevated status over others.
Some people, for whatever reason, don't take well to physical "sports". There is no reason why physical competition should be given an artificial elitism over mental competition. I sincerely hope the EBU's judicial review is successful.
You're the one who sees it as elitism and an elevated status. Nobody's saying actual sports are better than games. They're different. Lobby the government to set up a non-physical competitive games council if you like, but don't try to pretend board games and card games are sports.
-
I would rather see chess and bridge in the Olympics than wrestling, I mean ffs ::-)
Chess and bridge are already recognised as sports by the IOC. I don't expect chess to feature at the olympics as it already has its own Olympiad. It is held every two years.
The first Olympiad was unofficial. For the 1924 Olympics an attempt was made to include chess in the Olympic Games but this failed because of problems with distinguishing between amateur and professional players. While the 1924 Summer Olympics was taking place in Paris, the 1st unofficial Chess Olympiad also took place in Paris. FIDE was formed on Sunday, July 20, 1924, the closing day of the 1st unofficial Chess Olympiad.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_Olympiad#Birth_of_the_Olympiad refers
-
If you permit chess and bridge to receive funding from Sport England, then where do you stop in permitting other mind games?
Scrabble?
Monopoly?
Game of Life?
Mathletics?
University Challenge / Pointless / Only Connect?
-
I wouldn't include proprietary brands. Chess has been part of civilisation for getting on for 1000 years, and I suspect a lot longer than that. "Western" chess has been played in Europe with few changes since about 1500.
-
Why would bridge and chess players want their activity to be classed as a sport rather than a game? Clearly in this particular case the Bridge Union are after funding, but more widely, I think it is right to say there's elitism in considering a physical sport more worthwhile than a mental game - perhaps this can be traced to Dr Arnold, although he was a doctor - and a snobbery of the mental competitor looking down on the physical. There are probably good reasons for funding both physical and mental hobbies and competitions (of course most physical sports, especially team games, involve a mental element too), but with obesity NHS school playing fields austerity etc, probably more for the physical.
-
Given the
difficulty virtual impossiblity of getting Sport England to do anything for Roller Derby, which is a contact sport with a fully developed league and World Championship structure, Bridge/Chess could be barking up the wrong tree regardless of the semantics of calling them a sport.
-
Why would bridge and chess players want their activity to be classed as a sport rather than a game? Clearly in this particular case the Bridge Union are after funding, but more widely, I think it is right to say there's elitism in considering a physical sport more worthwhile than a mental game - perhaps this can be traced to Dr Arnold, although he was a doctor - and a snobbery of the mental competitor looking down on the physical. There are probably good reasons for funding both physical and mental hobbies and competitions (of course most physical sports, especially team games, involve a mental element too), but with obesity NHS school playing fields austerity etc, probably more for the physical.
Finally - someone's mentioned the health benefits!
Board games have many benefits - but getting kids out into the fresh air, ideally running around, is a lot more important at the moment.
-
Why would bridge and chess players want their activity to be classed as a sport rather than a game? Clearly in this particular case the Bridge Union are after funding, but more widely, I think it is right to say there's elitism in considering a physical sport more worthwhile than a mental game - perhaps this can be traced to Dr Arnold, although he was a doctor - and a snobbery of the mental competitor looking down on the physical. There are probably good reasons for funding both physical and mental hobbies and competitions (of course most physical sports, especially team games, involve a mental element too), but with obesity NHS school playing fields austerity etc, probably more for the physical.
Finally - someone's mentioned the health benefits!
Board games have many benefits - but getting kids out into the fresh air, ideally running around, is a lot more important at the moment.
Darts, snooker, rifle shooting, boxing...
There is a lot of recognition in educational circles that of all the pastimes/games/sports that a child can learn, chess has the most obvious transferable benefits. Admittedly, it's also in the best position of pretty well all such activities, because educationalists do like to see kids thinking. So far as I am aware, no control studies have been carried out to see whether shoot-'em-up computer games have similar, or other, benefits, but the idea would be a lot harder to "sell" to primary school head teachers. FWIW, when my son was teaching undergraduates he was bemused that they should be daunted by the sheer length of a 3-hour exam. He had been playing in chess games that occasionally exceeded that duration since he was in primary school so they held no fear for him.
-
No ones arguing that chess isn't a great game nor that it doesn't develop useful skills just that it isn't a sport.
-
This particular troll might be a nice, friendly one, but I, for one, won't be feeding him! :)
-
Why would bridge and chess players want their activity to be classed as a sport rather than a game? Clearly in this particular case the Bridge Union are after funding, but more widely, I think it is right to say there's elitism in considering a physical sport more worthwhile than a mental game - perhaps this can be traced to Dr Arnold, although he was a doctor - and a snobbery of the mental competitor looking down on the physical. There are probably good reasons for funding both physical and mental hobbies and competitions (of course most physical sports, especially team games, involve a mental element too), but with obesity NHS school playing fields austerity etc, probably more for the physical.
Finally - someone's mentioned the health benefits!
Board games have many benefits - but getting kids out into the fresh air, ideally running around, is a lot more important at the moment.
Darts, snooker, rifle shooting, boxing...
... go on ... I can't wait to see ... the conclusion of ... this great insight ...
-
Sports are a fuzzy subset of games. The fuzz reflects the degree of physical engagement.
-
Fuzz doesn't reflect anything (Word-game/sport)!
-
If you accept the argument that bridge isn't a sport because it's purely mental, then is poker a sport?
It can be played on the internet which is all about the decision of what to do rather than the actual doing of it, but when played round a table, muscle use (or lack thereof) could be said to be part of the skill.
-
Thinking about what you say there, there are other things that you can play on the internet that do involve muscle, and in fact some of them even have Sport in the name!
-
I watched IM Andrew Martin, former British blitz chess champion (blitz is a time control of all moves in 5 minutes or less) playing on the internet - he borrowed my computer. There is definitely a lot of hand-eye co-ordination going on there as, in order to save time, he anticipates his opponent's move and has the piece he is intending to move already "picked up" by the mouse and hovering over the square on which he intends to drop it. Reaction time is also critical at such fast time controls. If the opponent makes a move he doesn't expect and he has to change his mind, he has to ensure that the piece is returned to its original square.
-
This particular troll might be a nice, friendly one, but I, for one, won't be feeding him! :)
I can't decide - either he's troll, or he's quite quite mad.
(this is a common problem - on the internet it can be hard to tell the difference.)
-
If you accept the argument that bridge isn't a sport because it's purely mental, then is poker a sport?
It can be played on the internet which is all about the decision of what to do rather than the actual doing of it, but when played round a table, muscle use (or lack thereof) could be said to be part of the skill.
No. All games require muscle control, even if all you're doing is using muscles to talk to play Botticelli or I-spy. (I'm a big fan of abstract I-spy. I spy with my little eye something beginning with S - Saturday! You can only do that on Saturdays though). And even if you're playing cards on the internet, you have to use muscles to place the cards via mouse or trackpad or eye-gaze controller.
-
New definition of a game. If it can be played using nothing more than one or more computers linked together with no peripherals other than screen, keyboard and mouse or joystick its a game not a sport.
-
Except for Daley Thompson's Decathlon.
-
Except for Daley Thompson's Decathlon.
:)
I wonder how many keyboards that wore out.
-
If you accept the argument that bridge isn't a sport because it's purely mental, then is poker a sport?
It can be played on the internet which is all about the decision of what to do rather than the actual doing of it, but when played round a table, muscle use (or lack thereof) could be said to be part of the skill.
No. All games require muscle control, even if all you're doing is using muscles to talk to play Botticelli or I-spy. (I'm a big fan of abstract I-spy. I spy with my little eye something beginning with S - Saturday! You can only do that on Saturdays though). And even if you're playing cards on the internet, you have to use muscles to place the cards via mouse or trackpad or eye-gaze controller.
You always require muscle use, yes, but the muscle use isn't always part of the skill.
For instance, in (normal) chess, moving the piece deftly and swiftly doesn't gain you any advantage over moving it clumsily. As long as you get it to the square you've decided to move it to, that's all that matters.
But in poker, the manner in which you place your bets contributes to your chances of winning as well as what you bet does. i.e. betting excitedly gives away information to your opponent, who is betting against not how strong your hand actually is, but how strong you think your hand is.
I watched IM Andrew Martin, former British blitz chess champion (blitz is a time control of all moves in 5 minutes or less) playing on the internet - he borrowed my computer. There is definitely a lot of hand-eye co-ordination going on there as, in order to save time, he anticipates his opponent's move and has the piece he is intending to move already "picked up" by the mouse and hovering over the square on which he intends to drop it. Reaction time is also critical at such fast time controls. If the opponent makes a move he doesn't expect and he has to change his mind, he has to ensure that the piece is returned to its original square.
What if the software doesn't allow him to pick his piece up until after his opponent's moved, or does he always stipulate that they use software that allows him to do that?
-
Except for Daley Thompson's Decathlon.
By stating that the mouse-hand-eye co-ordination of his IM friend playing chess over the internet makes it a "sport",
Wow is just a small step away from demanding that Daley Thomson's Decathlon is included in the Olympics.
-
I'm not that familiar with much chess-playing software, but Andy was using Winboard. The advantage of picking up his piece before his opponent had moved was purely to gain time.
In physical chess, given that tournament play requires clocks, then there is a definite advantage to physical dexterity in the placing of the pieces. If you are clumsy and you knock pieces over when you move they have to be replaced while your clock is ticking and that will be a disadvantage. Furthermore, you are obliged to move the piece and press the clock with the same hand, and a smooth, efficient hand movement will gain you quite a few seconds over a long game, which could prove critical.
-
Jeez is this still going?
Fact: Bridge is not a sport, and chess isn't important.
-
I saw this on the news the other day and the guy who was pro-this had a specific intention in mind which everyone has ignored (apologies, if not here, I've not read much of the backlog).
Their intention was to enable university bridge teams to play abroad. It seems that university bridge teams can't compete in world title tournaments as the decision on who gets to go to such things seems to be down to the UK sports council (there was a specific organisation but I can't remember who) and since they classify bridge as not a sport then they are barred from entering international competitions.
I have some sympathy for their tactic of getting it classified as a sport to get around what seems to be a ludicrous piece of red tape preventing what they actually want to do which is just play bridge against the Scandiwegians or whoever.
Of course it isn't a sport and I don't think they even think this themselves, it's a legal tactic to get around a silly piece of red tape.
-
Jeez is this still going?
Fart: Bridge is not a sport, and chess isn't important.
I corrected your typo. :-*
-
since they classify bridge as not a sport then they are barred from entering international competitions.
Is anyone actually barring bridge players from entering these competitions, or just not providing taxpayer funding them to do so?
As has already been mentioned upthread, this seems to essentially boil down to finding a compromise between the people who want funding for their "thing" and the extent to which the rest of society is willing to provide it. Like it or not, a line has to be drawn somewhere and inevitably some people are going to be disappointed.
-
Of course it isn't a sport and I don't think they even think this themselves, it's a legal tactic to get around a silly piece of red tape.
Indeed. And they probably dont think chess, snooker or darts are sports either.
Worryingly, I strongyl suspect Wow DOES think chess is a real sport! he's certainly posted at great length on the subject, over many years.
-
I think jsabine helped us with the answer to this 3 posts in.
If someone totally unqualified in the activity can adequately stand in for you, whilst you provide instructions on what to do via a radio-mic, then it's not a sport.
The World Bridge champion could instruct me what to do with my cards and I could therefore do quite well in a game of bridge.
I'd rather not face up to a heavyweight Boxer whilst a boxing expert shouted "hit him...hit him.." from over my shoulder.
That takes care of sedentary "sports" as well, such as Darts and Snooker, where World champion instruction is not as useful as being World champion standard. Then again, do Darts and Snooker receive funding?
-
I'm not that familiar with much chess-playing software, but Andy was using Winboard. The advantage of picking up his piece before his opponent had moved was purely to gain time.
In physical chess, given that tournament play requires clocks, then there is a definite advantage to physical dexterity in the placing of the pieces. If you are clumsy and you knock pieces over when you move they have to be replaced while your clock is ticking and that will be a disadvantage. Furthermore, you are obliged to move the piece and press the clock with the same hand, and a smooth, efficient hand movement will gain you quite a few seconds over a long game, which could prove critical.
Maybe, but I think it's insignificant.
Chess is *designed* such that the average person is able to move the pieces without knocking them over because that isn't meant to be part of the skill.
You wouldn't want to rely on, or indeed even spend your training time practicing that as a tactic. It wouldn't see you through.
If I was an absolute master of physical dexterity, but only an average Joe Public at chess, and was up against Garry Kasparov when he was a bit pissed so was a bit clumsy, I still don't think I'd stand much of a chance.
-
Ben & Lee, excellent analysis :thumbsup:
-
I think jsabine helped us with the answer to this 3 posts in.
If someone totally unqualified in the activity can adequately stand in for you, whilst you provide instructions on what to do via a radio-mic, then it's not a sport.
The World Bridge champion could instruct me what to do with my cards and I could therefore do quite well in a game of bridge.
I'd rather not face up to a heavyweight Boxer whilst a boxing expert shouted "hit him...hit him.." from over my shoulder.
That takes care of sedentary "sports" as well, such as Darts and Snooker, where World champion instruction is not as useful as being World champion standard. Then again, do Darts and Snooker receive funding?
;D
"I said HIT HIM, for God's sake! Not RUN!"
-
since they classify bridge as not a sport then they are barred from entering international competitions.
Is anyone actually barring bridge players from entering these competitions, or just not providing taxpayer funding them to do so?
As has already been mentioned upthread, this seems to essentially boil down to finding a compromise between the people who want funding for their "thing" and the extent to which the rest of society is willing to provide it. Like it or not, a line has to be drawn somewhere and inevitably some people are going to be disappointed.
They never mentioned funding on the report I saw - Interesting and valid point :thumbsup:
-
I believe a Mr E Hemingway may have had something to say on this matter.
-
I believe a Mr E Hemingway may have had something to say on this matter.
Apparently, mileage varies on whether the quote you allude to can actually be attributed to Hemingway:
http://www.timelesshemingway.com/content/quotationsfaq#threesports
-
Yeah, but are women any good at bridge? Hmmm?
-
;D
-
Yeah, but are women any good at bridge? Hmmm?
In my limited experience of bridge tournaments, the sexes are much more equally represented than in chess. Rixi Marcus was Graun bridge correspondent for many years. My late Aunt Lucy was a titled bridge player. I don't know how good she was, and never played against her: I understand that bridge titles can be achieved through great longevity rather than through attaining a particular standard of play, as they are in chess.
The couple who ran the bridge events at the Mind Sports Olympiad used to spend a good deal of the year at sea, running events professionally on cruise ships. It seems that bridge appeals to a higher class of person than does chess...
-
I'm not that familiar with much chess-playing software, but Andy was using Winboard. The advantage of picking up his piece before his opponent had moved was purely to gain time.
In physical chess, given that tournament play requires clocks, then there is a definite advantage to physical dexterity in the placing of the pieces. If you are clumsy and you knock pieces over when you move they have to be replaced while your clock is ticking and that will be a disadvantage. Furthermore, you are obliged to move the piece and press the clock with the same hand, and a smooth, efficient hand movement will gain you quite a few seconds over a long game, which could prove critical.
Definitely a troll....
-
Rixi Markus was Graun bridge correspondent for many years.
I understand that bridge titles can be achieved through great longevity rather than through attaining a particular standard of play, as they are in chess.
Not exactly: you acquire points by getting placed in tournaments, then points mean prizestitles. The system differentiates between local points (which you can get from club events) and national points (which accrue from doing well against external competition), while the more prestigious the tournament (so generally the stronger the competition) the more points are on offer. I can't remember if your tally is a lifetime one or whether points expire - in any case, if you win big tournaments in rapid succession, you'll be GrandMaster Flash a lot more quickly than if you come eighth in a local one twice a year.
-
Bridge has applied to become an Olympic sport. So has chess. More sensibly (IMO), so have tug of war, sumo, baseball, karate, squash and various other things which (I think) are sports.
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/jun/12/snooker-chess-bridge-apply-2020-olympics-tokyo-tug-of-war-baseball
-
Jeez is this still going?
-
Jeez is this still going?
It died out back in June, but someone tried to kickstart it ...
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34320201 refers, I believe.
-
How about computer games? Professional teams have coaches, are required to exercise to maintain physical fitness, etc.
Oh, wait, they've invented their own category; e-sports.
Seems sensible.
Lets have b-sports for the card games, chess, go, and suchlike.
I haven't seen any cries from e-sports for funding. Instead, they've source prizemoney from fans. Big prizemoney. The major tournaments have prizes in the millions.
-
Mind sports is the official term.
The EBU says it has the definition of sport in the 2011 Charities Act on its side - activities "which promote health involving physical or mental skill or exertion" - as well as the International Olympic Committee, which said in 1999 that bridge and chess should be considered "mind sports".
I've no doubt bridge, chess, sudoku, computer games, crosswords, ludo, etc, do promote mental health, but as the bloke from Sport England said: Phil Smith said Sport England's job was to promote fitness and bridge "isn't getting the nation any fitter".
Going a bit OT, the Glon has a "stupid sports" article on, and I thought this was quite funny about motor sports: The real problem now is technology. Already some projections suggest that wealthy parts of the world may be moving towards driverless cars within five to 10 years.
Just think how funny and quaint Formula One is going to look if it insists on keeping a driver in there. Look! Look at the funny man moving his “steering wheel” and pressing his pedals! Possibly even before the Qatar 2022 Fifa World Cup rolls around, manned Formula One cars could already have become the sporting equivalent of the landline or the fax machine.
-
I don't know about that! It's "entertainment". We've got guns now but people still box.
-
If you read the article, you'll see it's hardly meant to be taken seriously.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/22/sports-sport-england-bridge
-
Going a bit OT, the Glon has a "stupid sports" article on, and I thought this was quite funny about motor sports: The real problem now is technology. Already some projections suggest that wealthy parts of the world may be moving towards driverless cars within five to 10 years.
Just think how funny and quaint Formula One is going to look if it insists on keeping a driver in there. Look! Look at the funny man moving his “steering wheel” and pressing his pedals! Possibly even before the Qatar 2022 Fifa World Cup rolls around, manned Formula One cars could already have become the sporting equivalent of the landline or the fax machine.
That's basically what Robot Wars has looked like from the beginning.
It would be a lot more interesting with actual robots.
-
F1 already has "Kimi Räikkönen" whom I suspect to be part of a joint venture between Nokia and the CIA.
-
An old friend who was into fly fishing used to offer up a much older definition of 'sport': it has to involve killing something.
Meanwhile, Jenga and jackstraws for Olympic status!
-
I was talking to my brother yesterday about this issue. He argued that fly fishing has a far greater claim to be a sport than most forms of angling because of the constant physical activity involved in casting a weighted line - which is also quite a skill. It's one I never mastered. Indeed, when he used to fish regularly, the imbalance of the muscles in his arms was as great as that of any tennis player.
-
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5660/21042479658_cd04acba0e_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/y4sd6q)
P9070340 (https://flic.kr/p/y4sd6q) by Mr Larrington (https://www.flickr.com/photos/mr_larrington/), on Flickr
Paging JR Hartley! JR Hartley to the yellow courtesy phone!
-
I had to look at that rod before I was sure it was a fly rod (it is) but WTF is that lure at the end?
-
Can't find a decent picture of the lure but it does proclaim itself to be the World's Largest Fly Rod.
-
It looks as though it is heavy enough to be cast out without the line to help it.
-
The judge he say no.
And no leave for appeal.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11932962/Bridge-players-lose-high-court-bid-for-sport-recognition.html
-
^^^Good. I used to play a lot. Can't imagine it making me any fitter, though, or involving hand/eye coordination in anything but dealing; and in tournament play the hands are pre-dealt.
Tiddlywinks, now...
-
^^^Good. I used to play a lot. Can't imagine it making me any fitter, though, or involving hand/eye coordination in anything but dealing; and in tournament play the hands are pre-dealt.
In my days as a bridge-playing PSO evenings over the green baize were punctuated with Chinese takeaways, fags, booze and weed. Hand-eye coordination was required to juggle can, jazz cigarette, sweet and sour prawn ball and cards at the same time.
Tiddlywinks, now...
I used to work with a bloke who, with his chums, entered the World Championships as an excuse to stay in the pub all afternoon. They were mortified after knocking out the (USAnian) defending champions in the first round.
-
"Chess is a waste of time."
It says so in the Guardian so it must be true.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/21/chess-forbidden-in-islam-rules-saudi-arabia-grand-mufti
-
OT, Cudzo! this thread is about bridge!
Yes, chess is an enormous waste of time! It's an insoluble problem, no matter how many hours you spend thinking about it!
-
I wanted to bridge the gaps of our checkered past.
We probably need a "Random chess thread".
-
"Chess is a waste of time."
It says so in the Guardian so it must be true.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/21/chess-forbidden-in-islam-rules-saudi-arabia-grand-mufti
Chess also promotes gambling, apparently, which is very much against Islamic belief. They do seem to like their race horses, though, leading me to think that horse racing must not promote gambling. ??? :facepalm: ;D
As for bridge in the Olympics - no, no, no. It might be a game of skill, but it is certainly not a sport. What next? Dominoes for the Olympics?
-
I'd love to see fives and threes in the Olympics ;D It's at least as much a sport as
-
I'd love to see fives and threes in the Olympics ;D It's at least as much a sport as
No it isn't! You don't know what stress in sport is until you have seen Kevin O'Connell* with 15 moves still to make and only about 30 seconds on the clock. Skill, speed, reaction times, accuracy of throwing pieces onto squares without them falling over, sweat, blood (he bites his fingernails), breathlessness - it's got the lot!
*Other brinkspersons are available.