Chess And Darts At Future Olympic Games

FROM: http://www.gamesbids.com/eng/olympic_sports_bids/1216134018.html

World Chess Federation (FIDE) President Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, told Gulf News he is confident that chess will soon be included in the Olympic Games.

Ilyumzhinov said, "my aim is to ensure that chess becomes a part of the Olympic movement and is one of the events in the Olympic Games soon. Today FIDE is made up of 165 countries and we would jointly appeal to get recognition from the International Olympic Committee (IOC)".

Ilyumzhinov, reportedly one of the most powerful and influential sports administrators in the world today, is president and head of the Republic of Kalmykia and has been president of FIDE since 1995.

When asked by Gulf News in which continent chess is spreading at a fast pace, he said, "chess is now being played in all continents. However Asia, Europe and America are organizing more chess tournaments every day. It is nice to see chess event being played regularly in Mexico and Argentina".

Gulf News reports that Ilyumzhinov is keen to spread the game at the grass-roots level. He said, "we are having special programs in FIDE for chess in schools. We now support chess as an academic subject".

Meanwhile another champion wants his sport to be included in the Olympics. The Mirror reports darts champion Phil Taylor says darts players need to be as fit as footballers. He has renewed his campaign for darts to be included in the Olympics from 2020 onwards.

Ilyumzhinov is an idiot that has no business running FIDE.   Politics, corruption, and lack of competence within the two main governing bodies of chess is as much a problem as ever.  I don't get the whole chess as Olympic sport at all anyway.  Why?  There are so many more valuable and useful things that could be done to promote the game instead.

Academic subject.  Won't happen in US.  Could be a lot better supported as extracurricular activity.  Lot of opportunity there.  I'm not opposed to sports, but in the US they are given an extreme disproportionate level of support.  Sure, there is a lot more interest in football, but we do a lousy job of backing up our rhetoric about 'education first'.

It is nice to see chess event being played regularly in Mexico and Argentina

I am from Argentina but I dont know that there are chess events in my country, cos few people plays chess.

Darts is quite fun.  I can see darts being accepted, but not chess.

I think chess will be included quite soon. It has a high status in many countries.

I'm less sure about dart, I dont see it as a sport with olympic qualetees. But perhaps.

I agree with you JRadis. Chess has grown to be very popular in many different countries. I think there should be strategic games at the Olympics not just physical.

i think darts and MMA should be included. chess should not.

...but there should be a new "intellectual" olympics where people play chess, go, poker, bridge, etc.

Poker and Bridge are luck dominated and should not be included with the word "intellectual" in any sentence.

Why all this anti-Olympic talk?

Why wouldn't chess be well served by becoming part of the largest televised/publicized human event every four years?

The it's not a sport argument is kind of weak. A full day of OTB tournament action and I'm exhausted, my legs and arms may not hurt as much as my brain but it's ridiculous to say that any game/sport that uses your mind more than your body is off limits to the olympics.

try telling that to the professionals in those games :)

 Try telling them what?

Are you insinuating that a majority of professional card players are so deluded they fail to acknowledge that the games they play are fundamentally based in luck? Even if there was only 1% of luck in those games it would be enough to merit exclusion from any kind of Olympics.

 The popular forms of Poker are not luck dominated, and duplicate bridge is as scientific as chess is.

 Can you or can you not get 2 aces ever hand?

You can.

Can you or can you not get a 2 and a 7 every hand?

You can.

Edit: Bridge obviously has more to it than Poker but to put it on the same level as chess is lunacy.

It appears you don't know anything about Duplicate Bridge, so what's your opinion worth?

Forms of Poker such as the Hold 'ems require a great deal of skill to succeed at the highest level. It's not a game to piss on ignorantly--like chess isn't just a couple of nerds pushing toy pieces of wood around a toy board.

Is this an appeal to ban any sport that begins with a coinflip (football, baseball, etc.)?  Or does that rank below the 1% luck threshold?

 When did I say that neither of those games require any skill? I stated that they were/are both dominated by luck.

Someone who has played poker once in his/her life can join a game with the top professionals in the world and they have a chance (not a high one) to win on luck.

Bridge is quite a bit different but the element of luck is still present.

Someone who has played poker once in his/her life can join a game with the top professionals in the world and they have a chance (not a high one) to win on luck.

About as much chance as I have in beating GM.  I don't play poker or bridge, but a small amount of luck will not overcome players that have developed high skill levels in any game.

As far as Olympics, Phelps' winning of 8 Gold Medals this year was, despite his dominant skill, had an element of luck.   Winning by .01 seconds, or when the difference between first and last is < 1 one second - there is an element of luck...a fraction of a fraction late on jumping the start, the slightest break in form.  Not just skill.  The right place at the right time has won a lot of Gold Medals.

 Nope you have about a 0% chance of beating a gm and your chance of beating a professional poker player 1v1 would be exponentially higher than that.

As for Phelps well....he was 0.1 second faster than his opponent....not 0.1 second luckier.

No element of luck in Duplicate Bridge. No. None at all in the sense that chess has no luck. You obviously don't understand what Duplicate Bridge is.

I can't think of an example where a raw beginner at Poker entered a top tournament and met with any success. Sounds like it never happened.

 I never said it has happened. I said it is a POSSIBILITY, if you are honestly denying that possibility then I invite you to look at how the game of poker (in any form) actually works. As for bridge there is at least some luck. (how can you say none...)