awm, on 2006-October-09, 14:53, said:
Let me try and give some reasons why encouraging young people to play bridge is important for the future of the game:
(1) Most young people do play games. In fact they even play card games. The problem is that these days, most of them are playing poker. Others are playing the various collectable card games (magic or whatever) or playing video games (halo, world of warcraft, etc). The goal is not to get these young people to play bridge instead of earning a living, dating, going to classes, etc. It's to get them playing bridge instead of the various other games listed above.
(2) A majority of the people who "take up bridge" later in life were actually exposed to the game when they were young. Most played a little social/rubber bridge, or at least hearts or spades in college. In most cases they weren't "serious" about these games, but the idea of "trick taking games" and playing cards with friends is present in their minds. Then when they are older and suddenly discover a lot of leisure time and/or that they don't have the energy for athletic activities they persued in their youth, they become more serious about bridge. Therefore it's important to give the current generation of young people some level of exposure to the game.
(3) The top-level "star" players almost all started playing fairly young. Young beginner players usually improve at a much faster rate than older beginner players. If we want to train up the next generation of national team players, we have to start young.
(4) There was a time when bridge was a spectator sport. This was possible because almost everyone understood the basics of the game. Even chess receives more news coverage now than bridge, because almost everyone knows how to play chess (yes, like bridge, there is a big difference between knowing how to play chess and being a serious chess player). If bridge is ever to be widely publicized again, we need the basics of the game to be widely understood, which means learning it should be a normal activity at least among the brighter youngsters (much like learning chess is today).
re: youngsters learning chess today, here's an interesting
observation about the role of technology by Dylan Loeb McClain:
Quote
At the Reykjavik Open in Iceland, which ended Wednesday, Wei Yi, a 13-year-old from China, completed the requirements for the grandmaster title. In doing so, he became the fourth-youngest grandmaster ever.
It is a remarkable accomplishment, but not as remarkable as it once was. After Bobby Fischer became a grandmaster at 15 in 1958, breaking the old record by three years, it was 1991 before Judit Polgar bettered his mark.
Since then, 33 other players, including Yi, have earned the title at a younger age than Fischer. The current record-holder is Sergey Karjakin of Russia, who did it in 2002 at 12 years, 7 months.
The onslaught of young grandmasters is the result of the development of strong chess computers that can be used for training as well as the creation of databases and the Internet, which give players easy access to tough competition. Since todays young players have more tools than players of earlier eras and therefore mature more quickly, does that make them prodigies? It is difficult to say.
If you lose all hope, you can always find it again -- Richard Ford in The Sportswriter
Help
