just a petition to make chess a sport doesn't get it into the Olympics . .
We been trying to make bowling accepted into the Olympics for years . .
We met all the requirements they posed but the always have a reason not to accepted except as a demonstration games . . .
Here i am teaching chess to my bowlers in a bowling alley . . .
you are most definitely being the opposite of smart.
also, "Exertion traditionally connotes a strenuous or costly effort," and i'm 100% sure that that is what they meant in the dictionary
A dictionary definition would always add an adjective in front of the noun, if it needed to specify. If no adjective is added, then we take both of the meanings of exertion.
there's something called learning the meaning of something based on the context, fyi
But what I'm saying is that any dictionary definition would make it clear regardless of the context. it's a dictionary definition. It is designed this way. It takes broad terms and, if needed, specifies them.
The reason why this argument is taking so long is because you aren't understanding the points I'm presenting, or you understand them but don't want to admit you're wrong.
but she/he does have a point
chess.com does not worry about an Uproar because with 1 boop this forum is locked
i will give that to @IfPatriotGames
@IfPatriotGames Is LITERALLY RUINING THIS FORUM
No they aren't. They're just stating their point. I suggest you respect it.
welp i guess i really am all alone
I mean, I don't see how else I can convince you it is a sport
That's easy. A sport is a recreational activity that requires physical skill. Not physical effort, physical SKILL. So if you want to convince someone chess is a sport, all you have to do is show how chess requires physical skill. Anyone that thinks chess is a sport should have no problem doing that.
No, your definition is false. It only requires physical exertion, so physical exertion does not have to be involved with skill. They are separate, and that is what you fail to understand.
Except it's not my definition. I had nothing to do with it. If I said a rectangle has four sides and you said my definition is false I would say the same thing. It's not MY definition. It's everyone elses definition. I didn't define sport, everyone else did. That's why the dictionary says what it says. That's why ALL the reasons given are what they are.
If you don't like society defining the word sport the way it does, change society. Change the definition in the dictionary. Until then, chess, by DEFINITION, is not a sport.
I don't see why you're still misunderstanding my point. Let me explain it again: Chess matches the definition of sport in every aspect. It has nothing to do with what definition is your or isn't. You seem confused.
The definition is very clear. Which is why there is no confusion. Anyone with even a 4th grade education can read the definition. It's NOT my definition. I didn't make it up. The dictionary defines sport as a recreational activity requiring physical skill. It may have little or almost zero exertion. It's the SKILL that makes it a sport, not the amount of energy used.
So when you say it matches the definition you are obviously wrong, or possibly confused. I guess you could try reading it again.
sport
noun
Definition of sport (Entry 2 of 3)
1a: a source of diversion : RECREATION
b: sexual play
c(1): physical activity engaged in for pleasure
(2): a particular activity (such as an athletic game) so engaged in
This from Merriam Webster. Different dictionaries have different definitions, but they all emphasize the physical aspect. Chess is not a physical game. It's a mental one. Which again, is why people with zero physical abilities or skill can still play chess just fine.
14 pages in 2 days god someone pls lock this thing
i get ur point @lfPatriotGames
The definition is very clear. Which is why there is no confusion. Anyone with even a 4th grade education can read the definition. It's NOT my definition. I didn't make it up. The dictionary defines sport as a recreational activity requiring physical skill. It may have little or almost zero exertion. It's the SKILL that makes it a sport, not the amount of energy used.
So when you say it matches the definition you are obviously wrong, or possibly confused. I guess you could try reading it again.
Again, it didn't say physical skill. It said physical exertion. You keep on mixing these up. They are separate from each other. A sport requires physical exertion, but doesn't require physical skill.
Seriously, that's what the definition said.
sport
noun
Definition of sport (Entry 2 of 3)
1a: a source of diversion : RECREATION
b: sexual play
c(1): physical activity engaged in for pleasure
(2): a particular activity (such as an athletic game) so engaged in
This from Merriam Webster. Different dictionaries have different definitions, but they all emphasize the physical aspect.
They mention the physical aspect, but they don't say physical skill is a necessity.
Chess is not a physical game. It's a mental one. Which again, is why people with zero physical abilities or skill can still play chess just fine.
Yes, I already know this. The thing about chess is that mental exertion manifest physical exertion found in other sports. Therefore, in every aspect, chess is the same.
14 pages in 2 days god someone pls lock this thing
i get ur point @lfPatriotGames
14 pages in 1 day
The definition is very clear. Which is why there is no confusion. Anyone with even a 4th grade education can read the definition. It's NOT my definition. I didn't make it up. The dictionary defines sport as a recreational activity requiring physical skill. It may have little or almost zero exertion. It's the SKILL that makes it a sport, not the amount of energy used.
So when you say it matches the definition you are obviously wrong, or possibly confused. I guess you could try reading it again.
Again, it didn't say physical skill. It said physical exertion. You keep on mixing these up. They are separate from each other. A sport requires physical exertion, but doesn't require physical skill.
Seriously, that's what the definition said.
the definition could have meant both, and one is more likely than the other
The definition was clear enough.
The definition is very clear. Which is why there is no confusion. Anyone with even a 4th grade education can read the definition. It's NOT my definition. I didn't make it up. The dictionary defines sport as a recreational activity requiring physical skill. It may have little or almost zero exertion. It's the SKILL that makes it a sport, not the amount of energy used.
So when you say it matches the definition you are obviously wrong, or possibly confused. I guess you could try reading it again.
Again, it didn't say physical skill. It said physical exertion. You keep on mixing these up. They are separate from each other. A sport requires physical exertion, but doesn't require physical skill.
Seriously, that's what the definition said.
the definition could have meant both, and one is more likely than the other
The definition was clear enough.
At least I thought it was until all of this confusion arose
you are most definitely being the opposite of smart.
also, "Exertion traditionally connotes a strenuous or costly effort," and i'm 100% sure that that is what they meant in the dictionary
A dictionary definition would always add an adjective in front of the noun, if it needed to specify. If no adjective is added, then we take both of the meanings of exertion.