ECF may join with English Bridge Union in Judicial Review

[Roger de Coverly]

Former CEO Martin Regan gives his perspective at
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/Forum/vi ... t=50#p2458

As far as my understanding goes, the modern form of poker tournament is not so different from a chess tournament. In exchange for an entry fee, you are given a finite number of chips. The tournament winner is the last man standing, in other words the holder of most or all of the remaining chips. Obviously it's random as to how the cards are dealt, beyond that it's skill or perhaps luck and psychology .

[Brian Towers]

Former CEO Martin Regan gives his perspective at
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/Forum/vi ... t=50#p2458

As far as my understanding goes, the modern form of poker tournament is not so different from a chess tournament. In exchange for an entry fee, you are given a finite number of chips. The tournament winner is the last man standing, in other words the holder of most or all of the remaining chips. Obviously it's random as to how the cards are dealt, beyond that it's skill or perhaps luck and psychology .

That "senior civil servant's" comments are utter bilge, Roger.

The element of luck in chess is miniscule compared to that in poker. It is also probably less than in a game like rugby (both league and union) where the shape of the ball adds an extra element of luck.

Until such time as poker tournaments are all "duplicate poker" in the same manner as duplicate bridge (the main form of competitive bridge) then it makes almost as little sense to compare bridge and poker.

Using poker in the argument is a straw man argument.

[Roger Lancaster]

Most sports have an element, greater or lesser, of luck - almost all outdoor sports, where weather enters the equation, fall into this category - for example, in cricket, weather conditions may advantage or disadvantage the first team to bat, an issue which is dependent on the toss of a coin. So it seems futile to argue that sport must be an activity where luck plays no part. That being so, it seems to me that an argument along the lines of "There is less luck in (duplicate) bridge than in poker therefore (duplicate) bridge deserves to be a sport whereas poker does not", while probably true per se, suffers from the defect that the dividing line is incapable of precise legal definition in which case there will be a never-ending series of arguments as to on which side of the line various games fall.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"So it seems futile to argue that sport must be an activity where luck plays no part."

You also have to factor in referees/umpires/arbiters etc. Suppose a football team wins 1-0 because the referee and assistant forgot what the new offside rule was? OK, it happened a few days ago!

But most sports can be influenced by an official being unsighted, for example.

Sports like ice dancing, gymnastics, even boxing and other martial arts etc rely on marks being given by judges

[NickFaulks]

Sports like ice dancing, gymnastics, even boxing and other martial arts etc rely on marks being given by judges

If they're sports then so is the Eurovision Song Contest.

[David Sedgwick]

Suppose a football team wins 1-0 because the referee and assistant forgot what the new offside rule was? OK, it happened a few days ago!

Have you never made a decision on the basis of what the Laws of Chess used to be? I know that I have.

[Paolo Casaschi]

Sports like ice dancing, gymnastics, even boxing and other martial arts etc rely on marks being given by judges

If they're sports then so is the Eurovision Song Contest.

Nothing new: in the ancient Greece Olympic games, apparently "sculptors, poets and other artisans would come to the games to display their works in what became an artistic competition".

[David Robertson]

...would come to the games to display their works

Well, I guess that's one way of putting it. I do hope you're not proposing that chess players perform with all their 'works' on display

[Mick Norris]

...would come to the games to display their works

Well, I guess that's one way of putting it. I do hope you're not proposing that chess players perform with all their 'works' on display

I think that breaches the ECF Dress Code

[Kevin Thurlow]

Nothing new: in the ancient Greece Olympic games, apparently "sculptors, poets and other artisans would come to the games to display their works in what became an artistic competition".

Up until 1948 actually!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_compe ... r_Olympics

[Jonathan Bryant]

Aside from anything else, the very kindest thing you could say about this statement

There is an emerging awareness of the effectiveness of chess in delaying the onset of Alzheimers

is that it is contentious. A more accurate assessment would be to say that the current state of the research evidence simply doesn’t justify such a claim

One world-leading authority, an outstanding polymath, bon viveur, raconteur, autodidact neuroscientist, philosopher, sage and chessplayer, disagrees. Though I'd strongly advise carefully reading the comments of Prof Joe Verghese before reaching a view on whether our chess-playing authority is in fact talking through his bumhole

I learn from Olympia Urcan on twitter that GM Davies has responded to the critique levelled at his blogpost recently.

http://chessimprover.com/dear-professor-verghese/


It’s an elaborate defence to a charge not levelled against him with no mention of the fact that he misrepresented scientific research and advocated a worldwide course of action citing a study that he hadn’t actually read. Nor does he explain why he deleted the original post if the criticism of it was so unreasonable.

Anyway, should anybody interested there really is no dispute about what the Verghese category "playing board games or cards" actually consisted of. As mentioned in May (http://www.streathambrixtonchess.blogsp ... -bark.html)
and June (http://streathambrixtonchess.blogspot.c ... ought.html) last year, it was

"Board Games Such as Chess, Checkers, Backgammon or Cards"


Btw, I wonder who he could possibly have been referring to when talking about pedants active on blogs, forums and in chess politics.




As it happens I agree with Michael’s point earlier when he suggested that the 'chess and dementia' part of this discussion was not directly relevant to the topic. Not sure if it’s worth the mods time to hive off the (ir)relevant posts to their own thread, but it might help keep things manageable.

[Richard James]

Btw, I wonder who he could possibly have been referring to when talking about pendants active on blogs, forums and in chess politics.

Pendants?

All pendants should be hung. Or even hanged.

[Jonathan Bryant]

Pendants?

Ah how I wish I could claim that was joke or a deliberate pedant trap. Alas, just a typo.

Not to worry. i’ve alterated it now.

[Angus French]

There's a new news item on the ECF website, headed "English Bridge Union v Sport England and others".

The above case will be heard at the Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London on 10.30 a.m. Tuesday 22nd September until Wednesday 23rd September. The matter to be decided is whether Bridge can be recognised as a Sport. The outcome of the case may have implications for the potential recognition of Chess as a Sport. Members of the public can attend.

I wonder, was the ECF's application to join the judicial review rejected?

[David Robertson]

I don't know. But I do know it would have cost a substantial amount to join the case, and would have fuelled clucking and squawking in here for several years if the appeal had gone down. As it likely will. Prudence is judgement.