[patroclo]

does anyone know why Jack is not taking part this year?
Why the bbo software Gib doesn't try to partecipate?

[Stefan_O]

patroclo, on 2016-September-08, 12:12, said:

does anyone know why Jack is not taking part this year?
Why the bbo software Gib doesn't try to partecipate?

Jack -- he took a break in 2014, too -- these competitors are mostly one-man-show projects, I think, so very understandable if there are sometimes personal reasons or other priorities.

BBO Gib -- That sure would be interesting! +1 from me!

[manudude03]

GIB suffers in events like this from effectively being a 1-trick pony. It knows how to play and defend against it's own system, but doesn't know how to defend against other systems. I suspect updating it to be able to defend against opposition systems would require too much in the way of resources (though would be awesome if they could so pairs could potentially train against GIB using their own system.

[The_Badger]

hi patroclo,

Whilst recognising there's a vast difference between chess and bridge programs, if as Stefan_O says these competitors are mostly one-man-show projects why hasn't someone, like a university computer science department been given a grant to develop a bridge program to the next level? There's plenty of money in the bridge and computer world.

It is nearly 20 years (1997) since Deep Blue defeated world champion Garry Kasparov at chess.

So have people taken the view that bridge doesn't really matter as the number of players are declining year upon year and it's not a profitable enterprise?

It's really odd that both Jack and GIB (both previous winners of the World Bridge Computer Championship) aren't involved this year. Bizarre, in fact.

[hrothgar]

I'm not sure if GIB has competed in this event in the last decade, so I don't consider the fact that it is not competing to be at all surprising.

[hrothgar]

The_Badger, on 2016-September-09, 02:55, said:

So have people taken the view that bridge doesn't really matter as the number of players are declining year upon year and it's not a profitable enterprise?

Here's another possible explanation:

Bridge has a whole bunch of artificial regulations about what bids are / are not legal.
As such, some of the most interesting avenues for academic research are banned.

Or alternatively: (Almost) no one under the age of 50 plays the game anymore. Researchers might not even know that the game exists...

[billw55]

The_Badger, on 2016-September-09, 02:55, said:

Whilst recognising there's a vast difference between chess and bridge programs, if as Stefan_O says these competitors are mostly one-man-show projects why hasn't someone, like a university computer science department been given a grant to develop a bridge program to the next level? There's plenty of money in the bridge and computer world.

It is nearly 20 years (1997) since Deep Blue defeated world champion Garry Kasparov at chess.

And recently AlphaGo defeated Lee Sedol.

But neither of these efforts were academic research. They were corporate research, funded by big business (IBM and Google respectively) partly as marketing. I doubt that bridge has much of a market that big business is interested in - the over 60 demographic is not widely targeted.

Add to that the strong feeling of "been there done that" which contributed to the 18 year gap from DeepBlue to AlphaGo. And finally that because of these two successes, no AI professional doubts that the same could be done for bridge.

So they already know they can do it, and can't really profit from doing it, ergo there is no incentive to do so.

[The_Badger]

Quote

So they already know they can do it, and can't really profit from doing it, ergo there is no incentive to do so.

With that one comment, billw55, I believe you have truly hit the nail on the head, I feel. And as both you and Hrothgar note: there is possibly an ageist issue too insomuch that bridge is perceived as a seniors game, and as I said on another post recently, 'bridge is not trendy enough for many young people'. Well, in my view, the national bridge federations needs to address this seriously because in the end there will be few who will know how to play the game.

I remember the days (in the late 1970s) when my local bridge clubs used to have 25 or so tables on a weekday evening. I was a teenager at the time. They are lucky if they can rustle up 10 tables now, 12 at max. these days. Give it another generation and, I feel, many bridge clubs will have to close.

I think bridge needs that Fischer vs. Spassky moment to re-energise it - this is when I took an interest in chess. If the bridge world can't see with all their intelligence what is actually happening with their beloved game - or maybe they don't care as they will be dead by the time it happens - then I really fear for the future of the game.

[barmar]

The_Badger, on 2016-September-09, 09:43, said:

I think bridge needs that Fischer vs. Spassky moment to re-energise it - this is when I took an interest in chess. If the bridge world can't see with all their intelligence what is actually happening with their beloved game - or maybe they don't care as they will be dead by the time it happens - then I really fear for the future of the game.

Unfortunately, the only time bridge gets into the national press these days is when it's involved in bad publicity. During the financial meltdown, it was big news that JEC was playing bridge while Bear-Stearns was melting down. And earlier this year there was a Vanity Fair article about all the recent cheating scandals.

Although they do say that there's no such thing as bad publicity, so at least people hear that the game is still around.

[sfi]

The_Badger, on 2016-September-09, 09:43, said:

Well, in my view, the national bridge federations needs to address this seriously because in the end there will be few who will know how to play the game.

I don't mean to single out your comment, but I think this view is a major contributor to the problem. In my experience bridge is increasingly only played in clubs and tournaments, rather than amongst families and friends. As a result, people simply aren't learning the game as a social hobby, and that needs to change for bridge to survive as a major competitive game.

My memories playing chess include playing with friends around a campfire, with large pieces in a public park, and quick games with friends of my parents. If I had to go to a chess club and take lessons there is no way I would know how to play today. I've never been either good or serious, but I know enough to be interested in the news reports of the world championships and to discuss it intelligently when meeting other people who play competitively. I came to bridge later, but it still involved many hours of sitting around dorm rooms, university dining halls, and the like - I managed maybe one club game a month even when I started going to tournaments.

And the national bridge federations aren't going to be able to address the underlying change. IMO, lessons at a bridge club are a terrible way to try and hook people. They are basically lectures that reduce something that is meant to be fun to an academic exercise full of rules. The federations can (and should) find much better ways to introduce people to the game, but it's up to all of us as individuals to stop it dying out as a family and social pastime. Without this, there will be increasingly fewer people who even consider the club or tournament scene an option.

[sfi]

barmar, on 2016-September-09, 10:00, said:

Unfortunately, the only time bridge gets into the national press these days is when it's involved in bad publicity. During the financial meltdown, it was big news that JEC was playing bridge while Bear-Stearns was melting down. And earlier this year there was a Vanity Fair article about all the recent cheating scandals.

Although they do say that there's no such thing as bad publicity, so at least people hear that the game is still around.

Bridge certainly got a boost with Omar Sharif, but it's hard to see how someone like that might have the same impact these days. Similarly, you can point to movies that feature chess and poker as central to the plot, but bridge is complex enough that it doesn't lend itself well to this sort of promotion.

[barmar]

sfi, on 2016-September-09, 10:38, said:

Bridge certainly got a boost with Omar Sharif, but it's hard to see how someone like that might have the same impact these days. Similarly, you can point to movies that feature chess and poker as central to the plot, but bridge is complex enough that it doesn't lend itself well to this sort of promotion.

Bridge was already a very popular pastime in the Sharif days.

Regarding popular entertainment, there were occasional scenes in TV and movies that involve bridge (e.g. the Ricardos and Mertz's played bridge with each other on "I Love Lucy"), but you're right that it was practically never an important plot point. It was just another card game that people happened to play, it could just as easily have been gin rummy.

[The_Badger]

sfi, on 2016-September-09, 10:38, said:

Bridge certainly got a boost with Omar Sharif, but it's hard to see how someone like that might have the same impact these days. Similarly, you can point to movies that feature chess and poker as central to the plot, but bridge is complex enough that it doesn't lend itself well to this sort of promotion.

In the 1970s both chess and bridge programmes were on television on the BBC: there were just 4 channels then. Now we have 400+ channels and are there any bridge or chess programmes? I don't know as I no longer have a TV: too much tripe on it!

And I agree, sfi, lessons at a bridge club are a terrible way for most people to learn so it's up to the schools, colleges and universities to get younger people interested initially. You can't rely on 'bridge families' to pass on their knowledge to their offspring.

I didn't come from a chess or bridge family but learnt at school: chess at primary school before age 11, bridge at secondary school (11-16). So it can be done.

[sfi]

The_Badger, on 2016-September-09, 12:57, said:

In the 1970s both chess and bridge programmes were on television on the BBC: there were just 4 channels then.

I've actually heard about the bridge TV programs. Were they any good?

Quote

I didn't come from a chess or bridge family but learnt at school: chess at primary school before age 11, bridge at secondary school (11-16). So it can be done.

Impressive. When they were teaching bridge at secondary school, what was their approach? I've been contemplating how one should teach bridge, and it seems to me that if you have more than about 10 minutes of lecture before giving the students some cards, you're going to lose them. I think that getting them playing to understand the mechanics is much better than giving them any idea about strategy, tactics, how to take tricks, how to evaluate hands, conventions, etc., but I have yet to test out any thoughts.

[sfi]

barmar, on 2016-September-09, 12:41, said:

Bridge was already a very popular pastime in the Sharif days.

Regarding popular entertainment, there were occasional scenes in TV and movies that involve bridge (e.g. the Ricardos and Mertz's played bridge with each other on "I Love Lucy"), but you're right that it was practically never an important plot point. It was just another card game that people happened to play, it could just as easily have been gin rummy.

You're right that bridge was very popular already (the figure I have heard is that 1 in 3 americans played bridge around that time), but decades later I still have people mention Sharif as the first comment after I talk about bridge.

There are some stories where bridge is a key plot point (Roald Dahl's story "My Lady Love, My Dove" comes to mind), but filming it would require the audience have more than a passing knowledge of the game. (Or a better director than I am picturing, which is also possible.)

[sfi]

sfi, on 2016-September-09, 13:04, said:

I've actually heard about the bridge TV programs. Were they any good?

One of the key things about the poker TV craze, IMO, is that a number of the commentators combine informative content and banter very well, which adds to the show. I would love it if we had bridge commentators that took the same approach, but the online broadcasts concentrate on expert analysis of the game.

Not sure how much effect it would have, but it seems worth trying if the right person gave it a go.

[The_Badger]

[quote name='sfi' timestamp='1473447856' post='897303']
I've actually heard about the bridge TV programs. Were they any good?
[quote]

They were certainly interesting but I believe they were for experienced players only. Can't find any reference on YouTube but I did find this, watched by 140,000 at nearly 3 hours long!

https://youtu.be/9GQGfdlNYyM - it is so, so utterly British, like bacon and eggs or Brief Encounter [Some of the comments make good reading too - lol!]

As for teaching bridge, start them on hearts or whist, easy games where they follow suit and work from there in bite size bridge pieces. For a young mind it will all fit together quickly enough.

[Stefan_O]

The_Badger, on 2016-September-09, 13:52, said:

watched by 140,000 at nearly 3 hours long!

https://youtu.be/9GQGfdlNYyM

Interesting -- I need check it out!

I believe the figure, though, is the number of eyeball-pairs who started watching it -- not that they all spent 3 hours --- unfortunately...

[johnu]

barmar, on 2016-September-09, 12:41, said:

Regarding popular entertainment, there were occasional scenes in TV and movies that involve bridge (e.g. the Ricardos and Mertz's played bridge with each other on "I Love Lucy"), but you're right that it was practically never an important plot point. It was just another card game that people happened to play, it could just as easily have been gin rummy.

One of the episodes from last season's The Blacklist started with a monologue from the James Spader character that had a number of bridge references. I thought one of the writers or directors must have been a fairly serious bridge player to have that dialog so prominently featured.

[nige1]

I think some prestigious commercial or academic organisation will have a serious go at Bridge, in the next few years. Such a project would probably make a significant contribution to Bridge theory. Programs like WBridge5, Gib and Jack would advance even further ahead of most players,