Is chess a sport or not?

Perhaps, we need a new term that combines the definitions of game and sport.

"gamort"

"spame"

Only if your definition of sport is so loose that it loses all meaning. 

If chess is a sport then we no longer have a need for the word "game" in this language.

Chess CAN be a sport. It can also be many other things. There is no single form of "chess." Chess encompasses a variety of activities. Sitting alone solving mate-in-3 problems or endgame studies is far different from an over-the-board team match. But it is all chess, it all depends what you want to do with it and how you want to treat it. A sport for the jocks, intellectual gymnastics for those seeking recreation, an art for the aesthetes.

Thank you!

Why is golf considered such an athletic sport and bowling is not?  Bowling
requires a compex movement of the muscles just like golf and neither involve
running or jumping.  So is the fact that one uses muscle movement a specific requirement for an event to be classified as a sport? 

Is there a dictionary definition someone has found that states that muscular
movement or contraction is required for an event to be called a sport? 

You clearly know nothing about cricket.

I've long held the believe that one key qualifier for whether something is a sport or not is this:

"If I can play it without spilling my beer, it is not a sport"

Chess is clearly out, as are darts (in fact, the beer provides a valuable counter-balance).  Curling is out and bowling is borderline.  Given that they sell beer at the bowling alley, though, and with concentration and effort I can pull it off I'd say bowling is also not a sport.

Now golf....  They do sell beer on the course, but I've got to put it down to take a shot.

Strange as it may seem, sportsmanship is not just limited to sports and even more curious is that gamesmanship is considered unsporting.

Crazy language.

War is a sport then?

What about lotteries?

You've clearly never pole vaulted.

Well, that depends, what is a sport?

I'd say one crucial aspect of a sport is competition. There has to be a winner and a loser. In this respect, chess clearly satisfies.

What is a game? Does it not also involve competition? So assuming that the words sport and game do not mean identical things (else why have two identical words?) we must assume there is a difference.

I would say that difference is that a sport requires a physical element.

Thus, poker, chess, and backgammon, which are generally played sitting in a chair, and could conceviably be mastered by a quadruple amputee, are games, not sports.

Of course, there are many other things commonly called sports that I think aren't. NASCAR and Horseracing to name two. The latter is, of course, a sport for the horses, but not so much for the rider. And the former? Please. I don't wanna hear the "gforce, endurance" arguments. The fact is, they are sitting in a padded seat turning a wheel. I see no reason why a 300 lb out of shape man can't do that.

 Interesting!

I believe chess is a sport, I tell my friends and they don't believe me.I will show them this forum topic. Hopefully I will change their minds

This is an interesting question, especially because it all depends on our understanding of the concept of sport. And this understanding may well differ considerably from language group to another, from one tradition or culture to another.

I will have to admit that I don't personally consider chess as a "sport", perhaps mostly because it involves a minimum (i.e. zero) of physical effort. Please, let me know where I fail in this judgement!

You're failure is in interpreting the word "sport" accurately.  If you're willing to redefine the word altogether you too can classify whatever you'd like as a sport.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I'll once again point out that the International Olympic Committee defines Chess as a sport.

My problem is this:

It seems that many are willing to compromise the definition of the word "sport", presumably due to their passion about chess, and in order to "elevate" it above other games in some way.

The issue is that this involves an implicit value judgement that assumes sports are superior to games.  I just don't see it this way -- the difference is one of kind, not of value.

Why isn't enough to say that chess is the best game?  Within the group of games this value judgement is a far more appropriate way to elevate chess above all other games without resorting to compromising existing definitions, and it's a conclusion I think we can all agree on.

That's because they have their own definition of sport that is proprietary for their purpose of determining whether to consider an event for inclusion in the Olympics.

The IOCs list of sports notably omits both American and Aussie Rules Football -- are these then not sports?

Yes, I am sure this is a correct assessment - whether "accurate" is right or not, I am not sure here! Obviously, if we redefine the word we can classify anything (even chess) as "sport". As I tried to say before, it is much about how each one of us experiences the word "sport".

Mind you, I am personellay certainly not against classifying chess as "sport"

In response to Post #60:

My cousins are NASCAR drivers(local track) and all are in good shape.  As I mentioned before NASCAR star Elliot Sadler was a high school star in 6 sports
and there was  a Formula One driver who should have defeated Jeremy Bloom in The Superstars competition if not for a bogus penalty called on him.  Please show me these 300 pound out of shape drivers because I don't know of ONE in NASCAR.

And jockeys are highly conditioned athletes that work out constantly to meet
the rigors and demands of their sport, which is incredibly dangerous and tough
on the body.  They are all chiseled and tough physically and mentally.