Petition to Make Chess A Sport

Sort:
Avatar of Psychomantis123
Soniasthetics wrote:

yes go back to spamming. ur just exposing what u and ur community are actually like. 

Unfollowing.

 

I think i might close my account 

Avatar of lfPatriotGames
navinashok wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:

All sports cannot be played online. There are no exceptions. That is WHY they are sports. Online activities are virtual. They simulate. They aren't the real thing. Games can be played online because the format doesn't change very much. The internet is just your proxy. 

By proxy I mean someone else does it for you. Take solitaire or chess or any other online game. You aren't actually moving any pieces. You tell the internet to do it for you. And it does. The same thing could happen in real life. You could sit down at a table and tell someone else to make your moves for you. Games allow that. It's why gaming is so popular on the internet. 

But that's impossible for sports. Sports require YOU actually doing it yourself. No proxy. 

 

Yeah, thats exactly why there is "Physical Chess", in the Olympics, they are NOT gonna use chess.com, they are gonna use physical pzcs

But there isn't. There is no physical chess in the Olympics. Chess is not in the Olympics. 

Not that it would make any difference if it were. The Olympic Games are free to include or exclude any activity they want (based largely on the size of the bribe). Think of it this way, Vito wants to give you a watch, a very nice watch. Are you going to say no thanks? Vito calls this a gift. What is it actually? 

The point is when something is done (or defined) under very false pretenses you have to consider those circumstances. Chess (as a sport) in the Olympics would be about as convincing as Vito being a generous and selfless friend. 

Avatar of lfPatriotGames

Oh, and btw, Sonia is right. You can argue with opinion, but you can't argue with definition. People who want to argue with definition realize and understand they are wrong, but have no where else to turn. 

If you were to say a rectangle has 4 sides, I could say no it doesn't. Then you could say but it does, by DEFINITION, have four sides. I could say no it doesn't. It's my opinion that it actually has more than that. Arguing with opinion is fine, because people should have different ideas about things. 

But arguing definition is just desperation, because without definition of words, there is no point in even trying to communicate. Any word could mean anything you want it to and talking becomes pointless. 

Avatar of Psychomantis123

Okay i feel like crying 

Avatar of Psychomantis123
royalknight101 wrote:
Psychomantis123 wrote:

Okay i feel like crying 

ha nice

It’s not cuz now i have to have random outbursts of laughing 

Avatar of Psychomantis123

-

Avatar of confidentflyer

chess is a sport like tennis tennis is good to

Avatar of 25GSchatz22

I'm not arguing with the definition. Just with her interpretation of it.

Avatar of lfPatriotGames

haha

Avatar of 25GSchatz22

shruggo

Avatar of lfPatriotGames

Imagine blowing through an intersection with a stop sign. Not even slowing down. The police officer pulls you over and explains you ran a stop sign going 40mph. What do you suppose would happen if you said to the patient officer "I'm not arguing your definition of a stop sign, just your interpretation of it". 

 

Avatar of lfPatriotGames

You can bet there would be an immediate field sobriety check. 

Avatar of chamo2074

Look guys it's not like I mind whether chess is a sport or not but the way the people who think chess is a sport are arguing is disgusting and doesn't give you guys cerdibility.

One guy answering every argument with them saying they need to scream for the other side to understand

Other people using the majority of 5 v 1 in an unpopular thread when therea re 50M members on chess.com

Avatar of 25GSchatz22
lfPatriotGames wrote:

Imagine blowing through an intersection with a stop sign. Not even slowing down. The police officer pulls you over and explains you ran a stop sign going 40mph. What do you suppose would happen if you said to the patient officer "I'm not arguing your definition of a stop sign, just your interpretation of it". 

 

Your example is different. Rules, such as not stopping at a stop sign, are clearly defined and categorized, and one is expected to have a complete understanding of them. Definitions can be up to interpretation if they aren't very good. 

Avatar of 25GSchatz22
chamo2074 wrote:

Look guys it's not like I mind whether chess is a sport or not but the way the people who think chess is a sport are arguing is disgusting and doesn't give you guys cerdibility.

I'm sorry if I come across as "disgusting"

One guy answering every argument with them saying they need to scream for the other side to understand

Um, I don't see what you mean. Can you rephrase that?

Other people using the majority of 5 v 1 in an unpopular thread when therea re 50M members on chess.com

I don't think I'm in the majority, at least on this thread. Perhaps in the whole chess community, I am.

 

Avatar of lfPatriotGames
25GSchatz22 wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:

Imagine blowing through an intersection with a stop sign. Not even slowing down. The police officer pulls you over and explains you ran a stop sign going 40mph. What do you suppose would happen if you said to the patient officer "I'm not arguing your definition of a stop sign, just your interpretation of it". 

 

Your example is different. Rules, such as not stopping at a stop sign, are clearly defined and categorized, and one is expected to have a complete understanding of them. Definitions can be up to interpretation if they aren't very good. 

Just like the words stop, sign, and stop sign the word sport is also clearly defined. They are only up for interpretation if you don't agree with it.  The guy that went through the stop sign at 40mph thought it meant yield, not stop. 

If someone were to have the opinion that sport is not clearly defined, I would suggest to that person simply consult the defining sources. Dictionaries. Is there a single dictionary that does NOT have physical skill/effort/exertion as the primary defining characteristic of sport?

Avatar of 25GSchatz22
lfPatriotGames wrote:
25GSchatz22 wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:

Imagine blowing through an intersection with a stop sign. Not even slowing down. The police officer pulls you over and explains you ran a stop sign going 40mph. What do you suppose would happen if you said to the patient officer "I'm not arguing your definition of a stop sign, just your interpretation of it". 

 

Your example is different. Rules, such as not stopping at a stop sign, are clearly defined and categorized, and one is expected to have a complete understanding of them. Definitions can be up to interpretation if they aren't very good. 

Just like the words stop, sign, and stop sign the word sport is also clearly defined. They are only up for interpretation if you don't agree with it.  The guy that went through the stop sign at 40mph thought it meant yield, not stop. 

If someone were to have the opinion that sport is not clearly defined, I would suggest to that person simply consult the defining sources. Dictionaries. Is there a single dictionary that does NOT have physical skill/effort/exertion as the primary defining characteristic of sport?

Okay. Let's go back to the definition:

Chess...

is an activity - check

involves physical exertion - check

involves skill - check

is competitive - check

is for entertainment - check

Avatar of lfPatriotGames

Well, you got 3 out of 5. Even those aren't always the case. Chess isn't always competitive. And it doesn't involve physical skill. And little (sometimes no) physical exertion. So the definition of sport is accurate. If you still disagree with the definition look at the examples given, baseball and soccer. 

Avatar of 25GSchatz22
lfPatriotGames wrote:

Well, you got 3 out of 5. Even those aren't always the case. Chess isn't always competitive. And it doesn't involve physical skill. And little (sometimes no) physical exertion. So the definition of sport is accurate. If you still disagree with the definition look at the examples given, baseball and soccer. 

It doesn't matter whether it is sometimes competitive. Football can be for fun, but it can also be competitive. The same goes with chess. (I'm assuming that's what you meant by competitive.) It only has to involve skill. It can be physical or mental. Notice that the adjective physical is only affecting the word exertion and skill is put separately after the conjunction.

Avatar of imkchess

Yes sport.