broze, on 2012-October-11, 09:53, said:
I have to admit, this never occurred to me but now you mention it I'm amazed that he hasn't done just this! One of the great things about bridge is the social element (in my top three reasons for why I prefer it to chess) and this wouldn't be present in such a game, but like you say it doesn't need to be good. Perhaps the idea HAS occurred to him but he is hesitant to do so because that would make the game *too* mainstream.
Bill Gates was interested in making money and keeping Microsoft's dominant position by working out what the "next big thing" will be. It has (apparently) turned out to be search engines and mobile devices and it is safe to say that Microsoft did not maintain their position in either direction. If Bill Gates thought there was money in including a bridge program with Windows then I am confident he would have done it. It would have meshed well with their Game Zone project too. The simple truth is that bridge computers are just not ready for this yet and bridge is too small of a market to justify their developing such a program.
broze, on 2012-October-11, 09:53, said:
Complexity is certainly what keeps people playing the game - there's absolutely no scope to get bored or grow tired of it! However, I do think that complexity is at least a factor in keeping (young) people away. In chess you only *really* need to know a very few things: the objective - to capture the opponent's king and how each piece moves. After that you can almost teach yourself. The cardplay in bridge is similar in that you can learn on your own, but the bidding you need to be taught (whether by literature or another person.) You can play chess online with a very rudimentary understanding, get beat over and over but still learn. With bridge, young people will play pickup bridge online, get abused by Turkish 'experts' for making a ridiculous bid, and give up. I know people this has happened to. The bonus with chess (if you can call it that) is that your opponent isn't going to shout at you for making a bad move - he'll just win.
Once you know a form of whist, bridge is not really complex at all. Not in the sense you mean of getting started anyway. Taking your chess analogy, you can play chess knowing how the pieces move, sure; but there is no way you can ever reach a high level without studying theory - openings, endings, middlegame themes, etc. Opening theory is basically the chess equivalent of bidding theory. I can teach someone how to bid in a basic way in a day, indeed have done so and proceeded to put the newly taught player into a League game on the same day. I think it would be almost impossible for me to teach someone how to play the Dragon variation in a day to a point where they could take part in a chess League game and have any chance at all.
Similarly, do you think Bob Hamman is likely to learn a whole new class of ending now. Surely he has seen pretty much every theme there is to see at some point. What complexity is there left aside from new ideas in bidding theory, most of which are banned in the majority of competitions anyway? So I can see scope to become bored with bridge but if you ever reach that point you are already a world class player and probably want to continue for the competition rather than the complexity.
Incidentally, you may think that it is different when you lose at chess but when you play in a team this is not always the case. I am reminded of a time as a child when playing against the best team in our league. All of their players won quickly but I hung on and eventually forced a won ending. Directly after the game I was amused to hear the opposing Captain say to my opponent "How could you lose to
him?" There was clearly some more to follow too but they moved away and I missed what they said. So yes, you can take some abuse in chess too, albeit less without the anonymity of the internet.
broze, on 2012-October-11, 09:53, said:
As for me, I have to say when I started playing the game I knew the stereotype that it was a game for older people but I didn't realise how true it was! When I wanted to start getting competitive it surprised me a little that there were so few young people on the scene. I am regularly the youngest person at my club by about 20 years and am probaly 30 years below the median. I recently played a green-pointed congress and was the youngest player in the event out of about 200 pairs. I was quite taken aback.
When I started playing I had no idea at all that it might be considered a game for older people. Indeed the basic rules have many elements which are very appealing to young geeky types. When you find out the bidding is sending information it is like a code to be cracked. Find the optimal information exchange. Then you learn about preempts and you want to be able to open destructively on as many hands as possible. Then refine this to the most effective ways of being destructive. Then you realise that your own methods are equally vulnerable to such tactics and need to find the best way of countering. It is like cryptography with different meta-levels but with a reward at the end of it. On the other hand, playing SAYC with a 70 year old stranger in an environment that looks down on someone turning up in the latest youth fashion and accessing their mobile between rounds is somewhat less exciting for the average teenager.