Parliamentary debate, 17 February 2023

[Roger Lancaster]

I understand, I am just making the point that getting recognised as a sport does not get chess any funding.

I can't imagine Sport England are naïve enough to answer the question "would you give us any funding if we were recognised as a sport?" but I am reasonably sure they would not.

Fair point but Sport England is a public body under the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. It may well be that any petition-backed proposal shouldn't be specific to Sport England but instead to DDCMS and leave that department to decide for itself how to implement what HMG may have decided - that's a matter of detail regarding the wording of any petition.

In response to those convinced that chess definitely won't get any HMG money, that clearly isn't Malcolm's perception (or there would be no point in his suggesting writing to MPs) and there I agree with him. However, as these posts indicate, I'm far from convinced that his modus operandi is the best one. I also entirely accept that any approach could end in failure but that's in the nature of things - few rewards come without taking risks.

[Joey Stewart]

It should definitely get funding of some kind, especially right now where the game is pretty hot stuff and there are people clamouring to play over the board but simply cannot find a club or afford the exorbitant amount of money needed to rent a premises to start their own.

Wasn't there also talk of turning chess into an educational tool in schools at one point?

[Christopher Kreuzer]

To add here (as the most recent thread), a Chessbase article from 2 days ago (16/03) by Malcolm Pein (while about the war in Ukraine, it is clearly also helping to promote chess and raise its visibility in government - one of the organisers is the Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves):

https://en.chessbase.com/post/uk-ukrain ... match-2023

UK vs Ukraine solidarity match reaches Parliament

The British chess boom reaches Parliament on Wednesday 22nd March, with two events hosted by the Speaker of the House of Commons, Sir Lindsay Hoyle. The first will be the opening ceremony of a UK vs. Ukraine Solidarity Match, with the UK number one, Michael Adams, taking on the Ukrainian champion Andrei Volokitin, who is currently living as a refugee in Poland with his family. In the second contest of the day over the board, the GMs will captain teams of MPs and Peers as they battle for bragging rights in a match between the House of Lords and House of Commons.

I've quoted the opening paragraph/summary. The prime movers behind this appear to be Chess in Schools and Communities (CSC) and the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). More at the link.

[Chris Goodall]

Chess ain't a sport though. If the rules specify the weight of any of the equipment it's a sport, if they don't it's a game.

[Roger Lancaster]

Chess ain't a sport though. If the rules specify the weight of any of the equipment it's a sport, if they don't it's a game.

Could I perhaps refer you to p127 et seq of the FIDE Arbiters Manual dealing with standards of chess equipment including height, weight, etc ?

[Chris Goodall]

Chess ain't a sport though. If the rules specify the weight of any of the equipment it's a sport, if they don't it's a game.

Could I perhaps refer you to p127 et seq of the FIDE Arbiters Manual dealing with standards of chess equipment including height, weight, etc ?

You could! They don't actually specify the weight of the pieces, plus they aren't rules; no players get punished if their pieces are too light or heavy, as they would for using too-heavy golf balls or too-light darts.

[Roger Lancaster]

Chess ain't a sport though. If the rules specify the weight of any of the equipment it's a sport, if they don't it's a game.

Could I perhaps refer you to p127 et seq of the FIDE Arbiters Manual dealing with standards of chess equipment including height, weight, etc ?

You could! They don't actually specify the weight of the pieces, plus they aren't rules; no players get punished if their pieces are too light or heavy, as they would for using too-heavy golf balls or too-light darts.

Chris - In FIDE-recognised events, players don't have the option of using their own equipment - they have to use the arbiter-approved equipment provided which is consistent with the Manual. As to other sports, I think you'll find - picking an obvious example although there's no lack of others - that the size and weight of swimming costumes/caps aren't precisely specified. By your measure, this would disqualify swimming as a sport.

[Ian Thompson]

I think you'll find - picking an obvious example although there's no lack of others - that the size and weight of swimming costumes/caps aren't precisely specified.

I think you'll find they are.

[Roger Lancaster]

I think you'll find - picking an obvious example although there's no lack of others - that the size and weight of swimming costumes/caps aren't precisely specified.

I think you'll find they are.

Well, yes, Ian, but only in the sense that they have to be of an approved type - no explicit ruling over exact size or weight - which is substantially the situation one has in chess where boards, sets and clocks have to be of an approved type in FIDE events. (Of course, these regulations don't apply strictly in non-FIDE events any more than the regulations governing competitive swimming apply to, for example, school competitions).

[Chris Goodall]

Ah, but they do specify the buoyancy of the materials, which is equivalent to specifying the weight of the water displaced by them

I was looking for a more elegant way of expressing the idea that gravity affects the outcome of sports, but not the outcome of games. Chess is the same game if played with extra heavy pieces on the Moon. When people say the "physical component" of chess differs in quality to the physical component of darts and snooker, it feels like that's what they're getting at.

[Paul Habershon]

Ah, but they do specify the buoyancy of the materials, which is equivalent to specifying the weight of the water displaced by them

I was looking for a more elegant way of expressing the idea that gravity affects the outcome of sports, but not the outcome of games. Chess is the same game if played with extra heavy pieces on the Moon. When people say the "physical component" of chess differs in quality to the physical component of darts and snooker, it feels like that's what they're getting at.

It's still a pity that the UK differs from so many other countries in its lack of support for chess. The government used to support the ECF but I believe the grant was cancelled in straitened times for lack of a decent business plan. We are currently scuppered by the emphasis on physicality. Surely the existence of a competitive structure, both worldwide with a world championship cycle, an Olympiad and titles, and within the UK a British Championship , county championship, local leagues etc., should be a valid criterion. Here the number of active players should be considered lest such activities as the annual conker championship should consider themselves worthy of a grant.

No doubt this has been debated ad nauseam in a previous thread.

[Roger Lancaster]

Ah, but they do specify the buoyancy of the materials, which is equivalent to specifying the weight of the water displaced by them

I was looking for a more elegant way of expressing the idea that gravity affects the outcome of sports, but not the outcome of games. Chess is the same game if played with extra heavy pieces on the Moon. When people say the "physical component" of chess differs in quality to the physical component of darts and snooker, it feels like that's what they're getting at.

That's an interesting proposition (chess pieces would actually be lighter on the Moon but that's beside the point) which I haven't heard expressed before and I've been trying to work out, purely out of curiosity, how it would apply to sports such as skiing and mountaineering. But maybe it's easier to look at it from another direction and argue that, if the proposition were true, children's games such as hop-scotch and skipping would be considered sports. Having said that, we've strayed some distance from the original topic so I think I'll end my contribution there before others' patience wears out!

[MJMcCready]

Chess ain't a sport though. If the rules specify the weight of any of the equipment it's a sport, if they don't it's a game.

Chess isn't considered to be a sport but the thing is if you look at the most popular sports on the planet, football, tennis, golf, rugby, cricket, basketball and so on, they all have a ball to play with but in chess there is no ball. If we could introduce a ball into chess without it changing the game too much, then it could be considered as a sport. I'm not sure how we could do that, maybe something like before a player makes a move he has to dribble with a ball around all his team mates and some cones in the playing hall or something, then when finished he can make his move, then maybe it could be classified as a sport. We just need to find a way to introduce a ball into chess without it affecting the objectives of the game, but how we do that, I am not sure of.