Bridge as a Sport

[Wowbagger]

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.

[pcolbeck]

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.

[jsabine]

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."

[mattc]

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. )

[Wowbagger]

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.

[LittleWheelsandBig]

Believe whatever you like, Wow. Chess, bridge and other games are not sports and shouldn't be classified as such.

[Wowbagger]

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?

[LittleWheelsandBig]

The distinction between game and sport is the point. The response flows from that. Sport England shouldn't support a game, only sports.

[Eccentrica Gallumbits]

If it's not a sport (which it's not) then a sporting body has no responsibility for it.

[Ian H]

Bridge boxing?

...as a compromise.

[Hot Flatus]

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.

[Wowbagger]

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.

[LittleWheelsandBig]

As before, "Believe what you like..." The elitism is real and justified.

[Wowbagger]

As before, "Believe what you like..." The elitism is real and justified.

Sorry, that point is based purely on ignorance.

[LittleWheelsandBig]

Bollocks. My preference is certainly not based on ignorance.

[Wowbagger]

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.

[Jaded]

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.

[mattc]

Wow:
The logical extension of your argument would be to ask how you intend to support those kids crap at football AND chess?

[Wowbagger]

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.

[Wowbagger]

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.

[mattc]

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?!?

[Wowbagger]

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.

[jsabine]

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 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 ...

[TimC]

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.

[Wowbagger]

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.