2 ms·

>But why does a championship chess set need to be produced expensively? In a word: Regulation. You have to use one of the specified sets from a specified manuf

by s_dev 4y ago

>But why does a championship chess set need to be produced expensively? In a word: Regulation. You have to use one of the specified sets from a specified manufacturer not just any. Fewer manufactures means less competition.

grahamlee 4y ago
This still doesn't answer the why though: "because it's the rules" leads us to want to understand how the rules came to be. Is the president of FIDE a shareholder in the approved manufacturer? Or is their cousin? Or did they fall out with a different manufacturer? Or is that the only manufacturer that makes the sets in a particular way that benefits championship chess, and if so in what way is that a benefit? Why not just mandate that form of construction?
- s_dev 4y ago
  Maybe you shouldn't be asking 'Why' repeatedly (that sounds threatening but isn't meant to be). Regulation is sufficient explanation for why something has a minimum price. By all means delve deeper but by going deeper you're changing the topic at hand. Why does regulation affect pricing of a good or service? That's another topic tangential to the one we're discussing. Feynman on 'Why': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36GT2zI8lVA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36GT2zI8lVA
  - Zak 4y ago
    Feynman doesn't argue against asking why; he just says that you'll eventually reach a question he can't answer in the allotted time, or perhaps that he can't answer at all. If he didn't think recursively asking why magnets repel each other as in the video was a good idea, he probably wouldn't have won the Nobel prize for his work on quantum electrodynamics. > Regulation is sufficient explanation for why something has a minimum price. I read the original question of "Why are championship chess sets so expensive?" as two questions: 1. Why do chess championships use specific chess sets? 2. Why are those chess sets expensive to make? The second question is easily answered, but I'm more curious about the first, and I think others here are as well. I'd probably be content with just one layer of why, such as "the regulators have an interest in the company that makes them" or "in the X year championship, Y problem occurred due to a substandard chess set".

by s_dev 4y ago

grahamlee 4y ago

This still doesn't answer the why though: "because it's the rules" leads us to want to understand how the rules came to be. Is the president of FIDE a shareholder in the approved manufacturer? Or is their cousin? Or did they fall out with a different manufacturer? Or is that the only manufacturer that makes the sets in a particular way that benefits championship chess, and if so in what way is that a benefit? Why not just mandate that form of construction?

s_dev 4y ago
Maybe you shouldn't be asking 'Why' repeatedly (that sounds threatening but isn't meant to be). Regulation is sufficient explanation for why something has a minimum price. By all means delve deeper but by going deeper you're changing the topic at hand. Why does regulation affect pricing of a good or service? That's another topic tangential to the one we're discussing. Feynman on 'Why': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36GT2zI8lVA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36GT2zI8lVA
- Zak 4y ago
  Feynman doesn't argue against asking why; he just says that you'll eventually reach a question he can't answer in the allotted time, or perhaps that he can't answer at all. If he didn't think recursively asking why magnets repel each other as in the video was a good idea, he probably wouldn't have won the Nobel prize for his work on quantum electrodynamics. > Regulation is sufficient explanation for why something has a minimum price. I read the original question of "Why are championship chess sets so expensive?" as two questions: 1. Why do chess championships use specific chess sets? 2. Why are those chess sets expensive to make? The second question is easily answered, but I'm more curious about the first, and I think others here are as well. I'd probably be content with just one layer of why, such as "the regulators have an interest in the company that makes them" or "in the X year championship, Y problem occurred due to a substandard chess set".