12342 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
Waking up in the morning is more of a sport
Yes, Facebook is a sport.
Chess is not a sport, it's an art, and a science.
I refered to chess as a sport to my wife, she said "chess can't be a sport, you don't work up a sweat or lose weight".
"But Karpov lost 8 kilos during his world title match against Kasparov in the 80's" I replied
Blank look.... "Yeah, what ever."
Chess, among other sports that have been recognized but currently not in competition in the Olympic Games, are eligible at any time to be including in the Olympics by a recommendation of the Olympic Program Commission and a vote from the IOC (International Olympic Committee) membership. To be a recognized sport requires the following criteria:
1. Must have an international organizing body that can petition the IOC on behalf of the sport. (FIDE)
2. Must be popular. The IOC defines "popular" as - must have male participants in at least seventy-five countries on four continents and women participants in at least forty countries on three continents. (Chess is played by over six hundred million people on every continent - even Antarctica from time to time)
3. Must have ranked events. The IOC defines a "ranked event" as an event in the particular sport that provide scores, timing, or any method used to measure competitors, culminating at the end of the event in a ranking of competitors with an award given to the highest-ranked competitor -i.e. the winner. (Chess had has those rules since before FIDE)
4. Must hold competitions on a world level. (FIDE's Zonal, Interzonal, Candidates, and World Championship tournaments all qualify)
5. Must have physical, as opposed to mechanical, movement involved. Any sport in which performance depends essentially on mechanic propulsion or movement is not acceptable. (Arm and hand movements - there is nothing in the IOC's rules quantifying the strenuousness of the physical movement)
Chess has been a recognized sport of the IOC since 1999. And if you want to throw a fit because "you" don't think chess is a sport, then feel free to blow your mind when you learn that the IOC also considers the following to be sports: tug-of-war, lifesaving, ballroom dancing, and bridge. Yes I said bridge.
It's a sport. S-P-O-R-T. Get over it.
So then obviously a different definition is being used. Chess is clearly not a sport by the commonly understood definition. But one can always define "sport" to suit his or her purposes, in this case to include chess. Sort of like throwing a dart at a blank canvass and then drawing the bull's eye around wherever it happens to hit, but if this is what you need to do to win an argument, then go for it.
So then obviously a different definition is being used. Chess is clearly not a sport by the commonly understood definition.
The "commonly understood definition"? Perhaps you'd care to enlighten us. And do feel free to specify precisely how much physical activity is required before something goes from "not-a-sport" to "sport", since that's the implied argument you're claiming as your reason chess is "not-a-sport". And of course, when you can't because it's impossible to accurately quantify the amount of physical activity needed to define a sport (which is why you don't find it in any defintion - common or otherwise), I hope you will realize your error. You won't, but I can still hope.
Um, gee, let's see ... any physical exertion at all?
That's actually a pretty good example of the logical error known as the "Continuum fallacy."
olyimpic games !
chess is a game !
Which, sadly enough, I can turn right around on you. Your implied claim is that, since there is no physical activity in chess, chess is not a sport. Is there -any- physical activity that occurs because of chess? The answer is yes; chess players use their hands and arms. Therefore your implied claim that there is no physical activity in chess is false. It doesn't necessarily follow that because there is physical activity chess is a sport, but as it meets all other criteria for the definition of a sport -as well as- the criterion of physical activity, chess is therefore a sport.
I think there is a reason why the OCP and the IOC have not recommended the inclusion of chess in the Olympics.
The skill in chess has everything to do with mental exertion and nothing to do with physical exertion. You could theoretically be a complete quadriplegic and play chess just fine.
Just because the IOC "recognizes" bridge and chess as sports does not mean that I consider them to be sports. If a lot of men get enthused about knitting, I suppose it could one day be recognized as a sport by the IOC, but never will I consider it a sport.
Which, sadly enough, I can turn right around on you. Your implied claim is that, since there is no physical activity in chess, chess is not a sport. Is there -any- physical activity that occurs because of chess? The answer is yes; chess players use their hands and arms. Therefore your implied claim that there is no physical activity in chess is false. It doesn't necessarily follow that because there is physical activity chess is a sport, but as it meets all other criteria for the definition of a sport -as well as- the criteria of physical activity, chess is therefore a sport.
I made no such claim, so it's kind of hard to make me defend it. I was simply pointing out that whether he is right or wrong, your reasoning for why he is wrong was a known logical fallacy.
If I were making the argument that chess is not a sport (which is silly, because this is all hinging on different definitions of a word with no standardized definition), I'd use one of these two arguments.
1) Chess does not have physical activity beyond the ordinary activity of mundane human activity. If we index physical activity so that "not moving at all" is zero, then chess has non-zero physical activity. But if we index physical activity such that the default amount of activity a human being is likely to be having at any given time is zero, then chess is also at zero.
2) The commonly understood definition of sport requires the activity to have some significant level of physical activity. That is more what the other poster's argument was trying to say, even though he did say "no activity." And while I can't provide a distinct point that activity crosses that significance threshold, the fact that I can't does not invalidate my point, and to claim it does would be the continuum fallacy. I simply use the Potter obscenity standard: I know it when I see it.
I love being able to play a sport where I can sit on my ass drinking beer and still win.
Lol yes me too ! But I think that one of these days I might have to do some physical exercise lest I become a typical chess player.
I have seen many guys sit on their ass, drinking beer, and only get up once in a while to throw a ball in a hoop! Guess we can call that some twisted art
Changing chess from a game to a sport is totally meaningless. It doesn't matter. People associate a sport as more important than a game because they think that a sport is more competitive, more grueling, more intense, and more significant than a game. That's your fault for thinking that. Nowhere in the dictionary does the definition of a sport suggest superiority to a game. So stop caring about whether or not chess is a sport or a game because that's all subjective and doesn't matter. No matter how you spin it,game or sport, chess is still chess.
If we had overcaffeinated announcers at tournaments, chess would be a sport.
lol...OK, so where do those two bozos with the brooms fit in?
Is it weird in tournaments to walk out of your chair and watch other games?
by ForeverHoldYourPiece a few minutes ago
Is there any chance that a 1300 rated player can beat a 2700 rated player?
by TGaPT 2 minutes ago
which is better, kings gambit or polish opening??
by ForeverHoldYourPiece 2 minutes ago
What happened to the fun???
by FlintLockwood 3 minutes ago
Wanted; High rated players to compete with.
by MethodMan118 5 minutes ago
How can I freeze the game and make sure I win all the time ?
by NobbyCapeTown 5 minutes ago
B Vs. R ending. Very long drawn out. Possibly troll bait thread.
by December_TwentyNine 6 minutes ago
Why do so few players play 30 min live chess?
by ticcherr 8 minutes ago
How do I permanently disable chat?
by RobertGouge 9 minutes ago
Why Do We Fear Artificial Intelligence?
by Moremover 10 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2013 Chess.com