Chess/ bridge

[benedgell]

A question for anyone who has knowledge of bridge as well as chess. I was looking on the English Bridge Union website, and noticed that entry fees for congresses are higher in bridge then chess. Obviously there are a great deal of people happy to pay these entry fees, and I in no way mean this to be a pot-shot at bridge, I was just wondering if anyone has opinions as to why bridge players are happy to pay higher entry fees then chess players.

[John Upham]

Should we widen the scope of this thread to include Poker? As far as young people are concerned then Poker is a big challenger to Chess. Should Backgammon be also included? A former work colleague of mine quit to take up Backgammon : can one earn a living from this? Obviously with Poker the answer is Yes. I assume that the order of earning potential is :

1. Poker
2. Backgammon
3. Chess
4. Bridge

Do young people play Bridge?

Apologies for my ignorance!

[harrylamb]

Are you sure bridge is cheaper than chess. When I checked green point tournaments (whatever they may be) were £18-21 per player per tournament which is much cheaper than most Opens. Sometimes they were £40 per team which may be causing the confusion as there are two players in a bridge team

Harry

[Alex Holowczak]

I don't play any of those games that aren't chess, but I know far more people play poker than chess who are my age. It was played by people messing around during Sixth Form all the time. Aston University's poker society is larger than its chess society (I usually kick them all out of the room we use when it's our turn in the room...)

By contrast, I've never come across anyone ever playing backgammon or bridge.

[Alexander Hardwick]

Do young people play Bridge?

This one does. I'm 15, and I enjoy playing bridge. Obviously I can't speak for my entire generation though. I also haven't played in any bridge congresses, so I don't claim any great experience of the matter at hand.

I have never had any particular wish to play poker, but your point is correct .

I was just wondering if anyone has opinions as to why bridge players are happy to pay higher entry fees than chess players

Why they are happy to pay higher entry fees - perhaps because they have no choice? Again, I am not particularly knowledgeable in this field, but it is possible that the EBU have a monopoly - or close to it - over bridge congresses in the UK.

I'll put it this way - let's say the ECF, for some unknown reason, informed all ECF-registered and graded chess congresses that they were to raise entry fees to equal to or higher than the aforementioned bridge entry fees (and all these congresses went along with the decision - I realise this is highly unlikely!!!). Would you no longer play in ECF-graded congresses, or would you bite the bullet and pay the extra?

[Alex Holowczak]

I'll put it this way - let's say the ECF, for some unknown reason, informed all ECF-registered and graded chess congresses that they were to raise entry fees to equal to or higher than the aforementioned bridge entry fees (and all these congresses went along with the decision - I realise this is highly unlikely!!!). Would you no longer play in ECF-graded congresses, or would you bite the bullet and pay the extra?

In other words, what if they put Game Fee up?

[Ian Thompson]

Are you sure bridge is cheaper than chess. When I checked green point tournaments (whatever they may be) were £18-21 per player per tournament which is much cheaper than most Opens. Sometimes they were £40 per team which may be causing the confusion as there are two players in a bridge team

I'm not sure you are comparing like with like. From a brief look at the EBU website, a Bridge weekend typically starts on a Friday afternoon and finishes on Sunday evening. There'll be several short events each of which last about 0.5 days with an entry fee of c. £20/player, or you can enter everything in the weekend for c. £80 per player.

[Alexander Hardwick]

I'll put it this way - let's say the ECF, for some unknown reason, informed all ECF-registered and graded chess congresses that they were to raise entry fees to equal to or higher than the aforementioned bridge entry fees (and all these congresses went along with the decision - I realise this is highly unlikely!!!). Would you no longer play in ECF-graded congresses, or would you bite the bullet and pay the extra?

In other words, what if they put Game Fee up?

Well spotted. I really don't want to turn this topic into a litany against the infamous (on this forum, at least) Game Fee, but I think it proves my above (quoted) point. I don't think many people are planning to give up on ECF-graded congresses just because of the Game Fee rise (although do speak out, if you disagree!).

In an attempt to put this topic back on track...in the same way, even though the bridge congress entry fees may be higher than those of chess (and, as harrylamb pointed out, they may not be anyway) I doubt any bridge players would want to give up on their congresses in protest against the extra few pounds.

[Ian Thompson]

Should we widen the scope of this thread to include Poker? As far as young people are concerned then Poker is a big challenger to Chess. Should Backgammon be also included? A former work colleague of mine quit to take up Backgammon : can one earn a living from this? Obviously with Poker the answer is Yes. I assume that the order of earning potential is :

1. Poker
2. Backgammon
3. Chess
4. Bridge

If you want a longer list then I suggest Scrabble should be included as well. That may be roughly comparable to chess when comparing numbers of tournaments, entry fees and prize money (at least at the enthusiastic amateur level).

[Roger de Coverly]

Many poker tournaments have adopted the chess financing model. You pay a fixed entry fee and everyone starts with the same number of chips and cannot buy any more. The winner is the person left standing with chips at the end of the event - or in the event of an adjudication, the person with the most number of chips. Local events seem to be structured in a format similar to darts or Crib or 5-minute and lighting chess - namely that it's all over in an evening and held in a pub for preference.

[David Gilbert]

Where’s the evidence that chess players are not prepared to pay higher entry fees over other games? Have you made that up or do you have some data? Of course, it's normal not to want to fork out more for anything, but that doesn't mean we are not prepared to pay more for the things we need or enjoy.

I almost always include a donation with my entry fee, equivalent to my ECF membership deduction, rounded up to the nearest fiver. At the recent Ilford congress I noticed that the list of donations amounted to over £100. So it’s not just me.

For most chess congresses the entry fee is the least of the travelling congress player’s worries. If I’m travelling from Kent to places like Frome, Kiddlington, Great Yarmouth or Bury St Edmunds, its normally at least £100 for two nights stay, £40 for dinner on Saturday night (if it's only two rounds on Saturday)and in the region of £60 for petrol. Not forgetting at least £20 for coffee over three days. So what’s the problem with an extra couple of quid on the entry fee?

What I do find slightly odd is that the entry fees and prizes are often tapered down from the Open to the Minor, suggesting that organisers feel that players in the lower events are somehow less able to pay and not as much interested in higher rewards. Is that true?

As to backgammon – I graduated from the junior backgammon level in the mid-70s to the intermediate events at Crockfords on a Wednesday night where I was paying £25 to enter. Michael Stoop who was playing in the Opens at the same venue told me he would have been paying anything up to £1,000. But Michael was a very, very, good player and playing for big prizes! Great man! You would have needed deep pockets if you wanted to challenge him to a friendly game of dice.

[Mark Howitt]

If I'd spent as much time on poker as I did on chess... I'd be much richer now

Poker really is much more attractive for competitive people wanting to play a mental sport in a lot of ways.

[Alex Holowczak]

What I do find slightly odd is that the entry fees and prizes are often tapered down from the Open to the Minor, suggesting that organisers feel that players in the lower events are somehow less able to pay and not as much interested in higher rewards. Is that true?

To be fair, they are less able to play. My definition, players in the Minor aren't as good as players in the Open.

Organisers presumably hope to get players nationally to appear in their Opens, whereas this isn't so much of a problem for the lower sections. So higher prize money draws in more players.

[David Gilbert]

What I do find slightly odd is that the entry fees and prizes are often tapered down from the Open to the Minor, suggesting that organisers feel that players in the lower events are somehow less able to pay and not as much interested in higher rewards. Is that true?

To be fair, they are less able to play. My definition, players in the Minor aren't as good as players in the Open.

Organisers presumably hope to get players nationally to appear in their Opens, whereas this isn't so much of a problem for the lower sections. So higher prize money draws in more players.

Really! The strength of your play is relative to your ability to pay? Hmmmm!

[Alex Holowczak]

What I do find slightly odd is that the entry fees and prizes are often tapered down from the Open to the Minor, suggesting that organisers feel that players in the lower events are somehow less able to pay and not as much interested in higher rewards. Is that true?

To be fair, they are less able to play. My definition, players in the Minor aren't as good as players in the Open.

Organisers presumably hope to get players nationally to appear in their Opens, whereas this isn't so much of a problem for the lower sections. So higher prize money draws in more players.

Really! The strength of your play is relative to your ability to pay? Hmmmm!

Oh! I read "pay" as "play".

Apologies...