[whereagles]

When I used to play chess (20 years ago), there was quarreling already. It's endemic with humans: we just can't get along.

[xcurt]

dicklont, on Mar 20 2009, 03:20 AM, said:

H_KARLUK, on Mar 20 2009, 06:44 AM, said:

Garry Kasparov - Soviet Chess Superstar in past guided and afterwards they established a pro organisation apart from World Chess Federation.

And the chess world has not yet recovered from that.

When there were two world championship titles many lost interest in either.

It hasn't recovered from Kasparov losing to Deep Blue.

[Lobowolf]

H_KARLUK, on Mar 20 2009, 08:29 AM, said:

I amateurly like and fully respect to both nice games as mind sports, anyways it's a truth that at least for now "Chess" has a superiority when I compare with Bridge.

I've worked for both the ACBL and what was at one time the largest full-time chess facility in the country, and known many people who are good (say, 95th percentile or so) at both games. To a person, they prefer bridge. Most notably probably Woman's Grandmaster Irina Levitina.

In the United States at least, serious bridge is far more popular than serious chess. The American Contract Bridge League has about twice the membership of the United States Chess Federation, more club games, and bigger tournaments. One year, I was the 8th most active member of the United States Chess Federation. Chess is a great game, and I still play some (mostly online). Bridge is better.

[H_KARLUK]

Lobowolf, on Mar 20 2009, 08:01 PM, said:

H_KARLUK, on Mar 20 2009, 08:29 AM, said:

I amateurly like and fully respect to both nice games as mind sports, anyways it's a truth that at least for now "Chess" has a superiority when I compare with Bridge.

I've worked for both the ACBL and what was at one time the largest full-time chess facility in the country, and known many people who are good (say, 95th percentile or so) at both games. To a person, they prefer bridge. Most notably probably Woman's Grandmaster Irina Levitina.

In the United States at least, serious bridge is far more popular than serious chess. The American Contract Bridge League has about twice the membership of the United States Chess Federation, more club games, and bigger tournaments. One year, I was the 8th most active member of the United States Chess Federation. Chess is a great game, and I still play some (mostly online). Bridge is better.

May,3rd 1997 , New York, US.
Deep Blue Supercomputer played a fascinating match versus reigning World Chess Champion, Superstar Garry Kasparov.
A dramatic victory occurred in 6th game; software won.

Kasparov vs. Deep Blue (The Rematch) was one of the most popular live events ever staged on the Internet.

The web site received more than 74 million hits representing more than 4 million user visits from 106 countries during the 9-day event.

If you say any online Bridge event can also get same hit sorry I've no words!

Th idea - to me - yes, a bridge pro union/org is quite possible like done in chess and like in many fields of life.

I wonder what's th barrier and or pressure that bridge people do not attempt. Real Professionalizm brings benefits to th World. When Bridge Professionals care to a code of ethics and establish special relationship with clients or patrons I know there will be a speedy and firmly rising market.

So far unfortunately prospects are a little bit bleak and a more careful scrutiny needed

[qwery_hi]

Lobowolf, on Mar 20 2009, 10:01 AM, said:

H_KARLUK, on Mar 20 2009, 08:29 AM, said:

I amateurly like and fully respect to both nice games as mind sports, anyways it's a truth that at least for now "Chess" has a superiority when I compare with Bridge.

I've worked for both the ACBL and what was at one time the largest full-time chess facility in the country, and known many people who are good (say, 95th percentile or so) at both games. To a person, they prefer bridge. Most notably probably Woman's Grandmaster Irina Levitina.

In the United States at least, serious bridge is far more popular than serious chess. The American Contract Bridge League has about twice the membership of the United States Chess Federation, more club games, and bigger tournaments. One year, I was the 8th most active member of the United States Chess Federation. Chess is a great game, and I still play some (mostly online). Bridge is better.

And poker is the best.

[Lobowolf]

qwery_hi, on Mar 20 2009, 07:06 PM, said:

And poker is the best.

Poker's a great game, too, but not as good as bridge, by a longshot (at least not inherently). Poker "needs" the gambling element to make it interesting; bridge thrives without the lure of prize money. Poker has a couple of inherent advantages -- it's easier to learn (and easier to follow along on TV), and you can see "regular guys" winning lots of money playing a game that you know how to play. People generally ascribe their wins to skill and their losses to bad luck, and the game blew up since they started televising it and marketing it aggressively. Yes, Virginia, people used to play games other than hold 'em.

But without the lure of winning money, how many people would care enough about poker just as a game to spent any amount of time playing it? Would it support multiple clubs all over the same metropolitan area, they way bridge does? Would people compete in week-long tournaments for no prize money at all? Of course not.

Yes, internet poker sites do offer "play money" tables and tournaments, but those are mostly populated by people trying to learn enough to make money at the real thing.

[qwery_hi]

What makes a game inherently better than another game? Poker has just the right amount of "complexity" to make it appealing to a large number of people. If we're looking for rich complexity, surely Go beats all other games hands down. But it is this extreme complexity which makes it less popular. Furthermore, poker admits many styles of playing : intuitive, mathematical or the whole spectrum in between.

The ideal game would be one as simple as possible and no simpler. Poker achieves this balance quite well. And you can't remove money from poker - that would be like holding only individual tournaments in the ACBL. How many pro's do you think would be playing bridge then?

[ArtK78]

Lobowolf, on Mar 20 2009, 07:26 PM, said:

qwery_hi, on Mar 20 2009, 07:06 PM, said:

And poker is the best.

Poker's a great game, too, but not as good as bridge, by a longshot (at least not inherently). Poker "needs" the gambling element to make it interesting; bridge thrives without the lure of prize money. Poker has a couple of inherent advantages -- it's easier to learn (and easier to follow along on TV), and you can see "regular guys" winning lots of money playing a game that you know how to play. People generally ascribe their wins to skill and their losses to bad luck, and the game blew up since they started televising it and marketing it aggressively. Yes, Virginia, people used to play games other than hold 'em.

But without the lure of winning money, how many people would care enough about poker just as a game to spent any amount of time playing it? Would it support multiple clubs all over the same metropolitan area, they way bridge does? Would people compete in week-long tournaments for no prize money at all? Of course not.

Yes, internet poker sites do offer "play money" tables and tournaments, but those are mostly populated by people trying to learn enough to make money at the real thing.

I play in a poker league where there is absolutely no gambling - The World Tavern Poker League. Players play for points which result in rankings at the tavern, regional and national level for each season (each season is approximately 15 weeks long - the Winter season is just now ending). There are prizes - each tavern offers prizes for the winners of each tournament, and, at the end of the season, the players compete in several season ending tournaments, the top prizes being seats at the World Series of Poker. But, given that there are thousands of players in the league, the fact that there are a handful of seats at the World Series of Poker available cannot explain how popular the league is.

So, while one cannot refute the fact that gambling is a major factor in the popularity of poker, it is possible to play poker without gambling.

Check out www.worldtavernpoker.com.

[pigpenz]

JoAnneM, on Mar 16 2009, 11:23 PM, said:

Why isn't there a professional bridge organization like the PGA for golf? Not that I am advocating it, but I can think of all kinds of advantages for there being one. On the other hand maybe the pros don't want to become organized because then they might become regulated? Just curious.

Also, what's the deal with people not putting their names on their convention cards?

Arent the Lyx's from the same place you are? They at one time were helping to organize money tournaments in the later 90's Early 2000's.

There also has to be some organzation or company that is willing to finance the rewards to the players, even right now Professional golf is having a hard time with sponsors.

[JoAnneM]

Bob Lix served as D20 District Director and was ACBL Treasurer. His wife, Sally, was active in the Western Conference and was a supporter of the now defunct Bridge Pro Tour, which was a money prize bridge game held in conjunction with some Regionals for a few years. It never really caught on - for various reasons. But it had little to do with professional players. It was designed for rank and file players with everyone playing the ACBL SAYC card. Some pro players participated, of course.

Bob and Sally moved to Alaska last year and are enjoying the quiet life now, and bridge in a club with three or four tables. Our club misses them a lot.

[pigpenz]

JoAnneM, on Mar 21 2009, 08:09 PM, said:

Bob Lix served as D20 District Director and was ACBL Treasurer. His wife, Sally, was active in the Western Conference and was a supporter of the now defunct Bridge Pro Tour, which was a money prize bridge game held in conjunction with some Regionals for a few years. It never really caught on - for various reasons. But it had little to do with professional players. It was designed for rank and file players with everyone playing the ACBL SAYC card. Some pro players participated, of course.

Bob and Sally moved to Alaska last year and are enjoying the quiet life now, and bridge in a club with three or four tables. Our club misses them a lot.

the problem as i see it is the money has to come from somewhere to make it viable for REAL Pro Players to want to affiliate. Entry fees alone arent enough(payout). There has to be a sponsoring group ( Citigroup, AIG, LOL j/k of course). Right now most of the teams in the ACBL team championships are usually sponsored, BWorld ran an article several months ago on how that has changed over the years.

I can still remember the cynicism from Edgar Kaplan about paying sponsors winning the Bermuda Bowl, once talking about Mr Brachman he said and now all he has to do is pull trumps and he did!

Large corporate sponsors arent going to do it unless there is an advertising link to it, like TV coverage to the event, its hard to stay focoused on vugraph on BBO let alone TV.

[JoAnneM]

Bridge Pro Tour was a misnomer. It was not a "tour" for pros. It was simply a side game, outside of ACBL, that was being run at Regionals that offered some prize money.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that there is anything wrong with the event structures or sponsor arrangements. In fact I wasn't suggesting anything is wrong at all. I just thought that for a legitimate player wanting to be a pro, or a legitimate player wanting to hire a pro, but not knowing any, there might be a need for some sort of central "clearing house".

Not every player wanting to hire a pro wants to retain one for the year or sponsor a team in the Vanderbilt. There are many levels of bridge below that.

[Vilgan]

Seems like an idea that will have trouble getting off the ground as the main attraction is for the clients and potential pros who don't have tons of name recognition yet.

I can see why people who have already made it wouldn't be interested. It puts them under the microscope a lot more than normal. If they make an error, there is a good chance their client won't notice. Or, if they do, it may not be a big deal. However, with a place where people can comment about them then it can put a lot of their choices under the microscope where they may not like it. Just about everyone will make a mistake from time to time.. but memory fades while comment boards are eternal If they sometimes vent a little, they might feel more pressured to keep it in... which is good for the client but probably more stressful for them.

For the big boys.. I don't know that there is much attraction to having a publicized rate either. Seems like the rate would be whatever the client will pay and may vary depending on client. I have no clue how this works though, so I could be totally off

I definitely don't think it will get off the ground if there is a hefty fee. It seems to offer little that is attractive to people who are already successful... so why charge them heavily? I'd think a 10$ lifetime membership for everyone interested (pros and clients) would be more appropriate. It won't make whoever puts it together oodles of money.. but on the flip side, it shouldn't be crazy amounts of work either.