Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old October 15th 15, 10:52 AM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Feb 2009
Posts: 57
Default Chess classified as not a sport in England.

Well, OK, actually it's bridge that has been so described; but beyond
reasonable doubt the same will apply to chess, draughts, dominoes, ....
The English Bridge Union has lost its High Court battle to get bridge
classified as a sport. According to the BBC web site:

" [... T]he judge said the issue he had considered was whether Sport
" England officials had "erred in law" when refusing to classify
" bridge as a sport, not the "broad, somewhat philosophical question"
" as to whether or not bridge "is a sport". "

The importance of the ruling is that Sport England controls massive
funding, so "sports" get coaching, equipment, premises, ... heavily
subsidised, eg by lottery money. By comparison, the ECF lives from
hand to mouth, and most individual clubs have to scrounge around to
get free or very cheap rooms above pubs or in community centres, and
use battered old sets. [There are a few wealthy exceptions, and there
has been an initiative to provide cheap new plastic sets to schools
and communities.]

The problem for chess [and bridge ...] is that it's classified
as not a sport, so misses out on sports funding and publicity [such as
results on the back pages of the newspapers]. We miss out on education
funding and leisure funding as well, as every pot of money tries to
find reasons to shuffle off applicants to other quarters. So, chess
will continue its genteel decline in the UK, and presumably equally in
the rest of the Western world, while flower arranging and every other
leisure activity, para-educational activity and minor sport thrives.

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.
  #2   Report Post  
Old October 15th 15, 05:36 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,170
Default Chess classified as not a sport in England.

Perhaps "Chess" should have brought the case first, before "Bridge".
  #3   Report Post  
Old October 15th 15, 06:13 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Feb 2009
Posts: 57
Default Chess classified as not a sport in England.

On 15/10/15 17:36, Offramp wrote:
Perhaps "Chess" should have brought the case first, before "Bridge".


Not enough money in the sport? It's expensive to bring a case
in the High Court, esp with limited expectation of success.

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.
  #4   Report Post  
Old October 15th 15, 06:27 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,536
Default Chess classified as not a sport in England.

On Thursday, October 15, 2015 at 5:52:27 PM UTC+8, Andy Walker wrote:

Andy Walker,
Nottingham.


You enjoy feeding from the public trough Walker?

Just like your academic career as a parasite...

RL
  #5   Report Post  
Old October 28th 15, 08:19 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Oct 2012
Posts: 255
Default Chess classified as not a sport in England.

Dear Andy,

And there is nothing wrong with not classifying chess as a sport, rather than as a game -- it is no less than that. What is wrong is the Olympic committee's determination not to admit a Games Olympics.

The massive dope-fed Sparta version it currently sponsors is perhaps a fair indicator of current culture.

Phil Innes



  #6   Report Post  
Old October 29th 15, 05:19 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Feb 2009
Posts: 57
Default Chess classified as not a sport in England.

On 28/10/15 20:19, Phil Innes wrote:
And there is nothing wrong with not classifying chess as a sport,
rather than as a game -- it is no less than that. What is wrong is
the Olympic committee's determination not to admit a Games Olympics.


There is already an Olympic *Games*! But you're missing the
point. It would be nice [FSVO nice] if the IOC acted as an umbrella
organisation for "Mind Sports" and perhaps other games/pastimes, but
it's the *UK* Olympic Committee that has *huge* amounts of money for
all manner of activities, but not chess.

For a back-of-the-envelope calculation, roughly half the UK
population is buying lottery tickets. If they buy three a week, and
half the money goes to "good causes", that's over $6bn pa of lottery
money going to everything under the sun *except* chess/bridge/similar.
One part in ten thousand of that would completely transform the
financing of chess. But to get hold of that you have to tick one of
their boxes. Chess manages to miss them all; it's not a sport, not
a charity, not educational, not welfare, not anything that "deserves"
support.

In the unlikely event that the EBU had won their court case,
bridge, and therefore chess, would have clicked for automatic funding
from the lottery funding going to sport, and from government funding
going either directly or as a matching contribution to the same good
causes. So you can decide that it's a Good Idea to get children off
the streets by teaching them kick boxing or bog snorkelling, and get
help with equipment, premises, paying for coaches, transport, ...;
or you can decide that it's an equally Good Idea to get them off the
streets by teaching them chess, and find yourself in a cheap tatty
room over a pub using second-hand sets with no external help at all.
So guess which Good Ideas thrive.

Of course this is a very general problem with the tick-box
mentality. Any activity or condition that happens to fall between
the boxes gets ignored. Typically, the main-stream is well looked
after, but anything unusual or inter-disciplinary falls by the
way-side.

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.
  #7   Report Post  
Old December 26th 15, 07:25 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jan 2008
Posts: 569
Default Chess classified as not a sport in England.

On Thursday, October 29, 2015 at 11:19:06 AM UTC-6, Andy Walker wrote:
But to get hold of that you have to tick one of
their boxes. Chess manages to miss them all; it's not a sport, not
a charity, not educational, not welfare, not anything that "deserves"
support.


The "tick-box mentality" is an unavoidable consequence of leaving the day-to-day
administration of things like lottery funding in the hands of people who are not
trusted with the authority to fund anything they feel like.

And, thus, the _proper_ cure for the situation is to have *Parliament*, not the
courts, remedy it... by _adding another tick-box_.

I realize that this is going to take a lot of time and work to achieve - but Chess, at least, has slightly more hope of achieving this than Contract Bridge. It's true that we're no longer terribly concerned about beating the Russians at this strategic pastime, but perhaps if enough people send the score of WEI Yi's recent brilliant victory over Lazaro BRUZON Bautista to their MP...

John Savard
  #8   Report Post  
Old December 29th 15, 07:01 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Oct 2012
Posts: 255
Default Chess classified as not a sport in England.



There is already an Olympic *Games*! But you're missing the
point. It would be nice [FSVO nice] if the IOC acted as an umbrella
organisation for "Mind Sports" and perhaps other games/pastimes, but
it's the *UK* Olympic Committee that has *huge* amounts of money for
all manner of activities, but not chess.

For a back-of-the-envelope calculation, roughly half the UK
population is buying lottery tickets. If they buy three a week, and
half the money goes to "good causes", that's over $6bn pa of lottery
money going to everything under the sun *except* chess/bridge/similar.
One part in ten thousand of that would completely transform the
financing of chess. But to get hold of that you have to tick one of
their boxes. Chess manages to miss them all; it's not a sport, not
a charity, not educational, not welfare, not anything that "deserves"
support.

In the unlikely event that the EBU had won their court case,
bridge, and therefore chess, would have clicked for automatic funding
from the lottery funding going to sport, and from government funding
going either directly or as a matching contribution to the same good
causes. So you can decide that it's a Good Idea to get children off
the streets by teaching them kick boxing or bog snorkelling, and get
help with equipment, premises, paying for coaches, transport, ...;
or you can decide that it's an equally Good Idea to get them off the
streets by teaching them chess, and find yourself in a cheap tatty
room over a pub using second-hand sets with no external help at all.
So guess which Good Ideas thrive.


Andy Walker,
Nottingham.


Andy, good post!

Here in the US Warren Buffett and Bill Gates offered a New York school $100,000 to put in a bridge program, because, said Gates, bridge teaches what business schools lack in forwarding American entrepreneurial activity. The schools declined to take part.

As for the type of intelligence that Harvard's Howard Gardner describes as 'abstract spatial' being a small percent [maybe 7%] but which chess describes very well, what is 7% of American highschoolers?

About 4 million enter the system per year, and 7% of those will have primary intelligence as 'abstract spatial' which is, as you know, 4x70,000 kids.

Gardner's Multiple Intelligence theorem is not obscure, and increasingly mainline in US education -- should be strange to find a teacher who doesn't understand it or a teacher of teacher curriculum.

I don't know in round numbers what equivalent that is to UK students, but about 300,000 kids are being dissed here every year, and for every year they attend high school [age 14-18]

I liked your phrase 'one part in 10,000 would transform...'

Cordially, Phil

  #9   Report Post  
Old January 4th 16, 01:13 AM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,536
Default Chess classified as not a sport in England.

On Thursday, October 15, 2015 at 5:52:27 PM UTC+8, Andy Walker wrote:
Well, OK, actually it's bridge that has been so described; but beyond


--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.


Lies by the Englishman noted; your country is famous for small lies. It's built on a foundations of lies and half-promises. Look at the Middle East, which is screwed up due to Englishman lies to various parties, including both side of the conflict there.

What is a Dedekind Cut? Did you ever know, even in your prime? Doubtful.

RL
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sound and Fury in Polgarland B. Lafferty[_6_] rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 3 December 15th 08 09:20 AM
Books? Frenki rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 4 December 4th 07 03:26 PM
rec.games.chess.misc FAQ [2/4] [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 January 3rd 06 06:04 AM
rec.games.chess.misc FAQ [2/4] [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 November 3rd 05 05:30 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:17 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017