I think the real problem seems to be the people who seem to run our planet don't want real change, some people evolve as an evolutionary getting laid strategy, the tactic of Rolls Royce gathering, it usually scores the highest, in the sport of rumpy pumpy, there are other strategies, but Rolls Royces is tried and tested.
Any pastime that means, its adherents spend time thinking for themselves must be banned or at least discouraged, just ask Ayatollah Khomeini as he whispers in the ears of the people who run our culture, just buy your washing powder and pay your mortgage.
Some people just see life in terms of themselves, others see themselves in terms of life.
Is chess included in all this?
-
- Posts: 541
- Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 10:03 pm
- Location: Leicester
Re: Is chess included in all this?
Last edited by PeterTurland on Sat Sep 22, 2012 8:57 pm, edited 4 times in total.
-
- Posts: 1188
- Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 6:46 am
Re: Is chess included in all this?
I repeat myself, but it really looks to me you are happy for your taxpayer money to support triple-jumpers, mountain-bikers and badminton-players and chess gets nothing. I guess you got what you asked for.Johnathan Rothwell wrote:I can understand the desire to grab some of the Olympic/Lottery/Sports Council funding, but it just isn't realistic. To me Chess is a game, and although it may well be just a definition (between a game and a sport), it is an important one (as definitions tend to be).
You could make a case that as chess is a game, and that the Olympics are played at the 'games', then chess should be included.
I think the major stumbling block is that including chess as a sport would A: Be ridiculous to the majority of people. B: Set a precedent for other games to join the bandwagon - and try as I might I just can't imagine a gold medal for Hungry Hippo or Buckaroo, can you?
-
- Posts: 9085
- Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
- Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Re: Is chess included in all this?
If chess were a sport, would we be guaranteed to actually get any money?Paolo Casaschi wrote:I repeat myself, but it really looks to me you are happy for your taxpayer money to support triple-jumpers, mountain-bikers and badminton-players and chess gets nothing. I guess you got what you asked for.
-
- Posts: 1188
- Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 6:46 am
Re: Is chess included in all this?
The only thing I can guarantee is that chess not being a sport, chess is getting nothing.Alex Holowczak wrote:If chess were a sport, would we be guaranteed to actually get any money?Paolo Casaschi wrote:I repeat myself, but it really looks to me you are happy for your taxpayer money to support triple-jumpers, mountain-bikers and badminton-players and chess gets nothing. I guess you got what you asked for.
I also know about a few other countries in Europe: there the chess federation is a member of the national Olympic committee and this results in government funds being granted to chess.
Even Turkey, whose chess federation president people here like to mock, they are member of their national Olympic commitee. They got government funding for the chess Olympics; with that credibility come sponsors (a major national bank). You can mock Ali as much as you like, but the budget of the Turkish federation is likely a way larger than the ECF budget...
-
- Posts: 28
- Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 12:19 am
Re: Is chess included in all this?
I didn't ask for any of it. I am not overly concerned that some % of money goes to support athletes (although I also believe that the cost of hosting the Olympics was excessive). I think it is reasonable that the ECF should also get some money as they represent England at an international level, it is a shame that they do not. I'm not happy about it, I tolerate it. For example I'd much rather the £130 000 that my local MP claimed in expenses this year (On top of his 5x the national average wage salary) went to chess, or even better to job creation, but it didn't. However, none of this is going to change the fact that chess is a game and not a sport.Paolo Casaschi wrote:I repeat myself, but it really looks to me you are happy for your taxpayer money to support triple-jumpers, mountain-bikers and badminton-players and chess gets nothing. I guess you got what you asked for.Johnathan Rothwell wrote:I can understand the desire to grab some of the Olympic/Lottery/Sports Council funding, but it just isn't realistic. To me Chess is a game, and although it may well be just a definition (between a game and a sport), it is an important one (as definitions tend to be).
You could make a case that as chess is a game, and that the Olympics are played at the 'games', then chess should be included.
I think the major stumbling block is that including chess as a sport would A: Be ridiculous to the majority of people. B: Set a precedent for other games to join the bandwagon - and try as I might I just can't imagine a gold medal for Hungry Hippo or Buckaroo, can you?
-
- Posts: 21341
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Re: Is chess included in all this?
They get enormous sums of money, both from the Government and commercial sponsors. There's some sort of return for their hotel and tourism sectors, but what are they actually looking for? It was suggested that the finance for the 2000 chess Olympiad was intended as a demonstration that they could stage major events. The motivation for the 2012 event is less clear, particularly as the Turkish Federation went out of its way to gain a poor reputation with the rest of the chess world.Paolo Casaschi wrote: You can mock Ali as much as you like, but the budget of the Turkish federation is likely a way larger than the ECF budget...
In terms of "sporting" prestige, banning one of your strongest and most experienced players isn't always a route to success.