If a pickup game of basketball isn't competitive, then does that mean basketball is not a sport? Also, the definition says competes, which means to strive to gain or win something by defeating or establishing superiority over others who are trying to do the same.
Fits chess perfectly, no?
Yes, chess can be competitive. So is Monopoly. But 25G says we can leave that part out. So, what other parts of the definition can we leave out? If each of us gets to pick and choose which parts we like, and don't like, we can easily conclude any activity is a sport. Physical skill or not. Competitive or not. Entertaining or not. Why even bother with definitions of words?
"It doesn't matter whether it is sometimes competitive"
What other parts of the definition don't matter?
"It doesn't matter whether it is sometimes competitive"
He means that chess isn't always competitive and can be played for fun.
"It doesn't matter whether it is sometimes competitive"
He means that chess isn't always competitive and can be played for fun.
And that's true. But all sports ARE physical. All definitions have that part. Chess is not physical. It's mental. The physical parts of chess can be completely eliminated. That's not possible for sports. Which is why chess cannot be a sport.
Even the source he provided lists chess under games, not sports.
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.
Page 15
What possible benefits are there to defining chess as a "sport", even though it does not require any physical skill or co-ordination? To get it into the Olympics? We already have our own Olympics, international team competitions, a World Championship, a World Junior Chamionship, a Seniors Championship, National Championships, parallel competitions for women only, many, many tournaments, and thousands of clubs with inter club matches and internal competitions. How would defining chess as a sport improve on that? This thread is no more than an attempt by one individual to impose on all of us his personal view of what is and is not a sport.
I had hoped for an answer with a bit more content than that.
lol?? What is there to laugh about?
What possible benefits are there to defining chess as a "sport", even though it does not require any physical skill or co-ordination? To get it into the Olympics? We already have our own Olympics, international team competitions, a World Championship, a World Junior Chamionship, a Seniors Championship, National Championships, parallel competitions for women only, many, many tournaments, and thousands of clubs with inter club matches and internal competitions. How would defining chess as a sport improve on that? This thread is no more than an attempt by one individual to impose on all of us his personal view of what is and is not a sport.
I mean, chess being in the olympics would generate huge amounts of publicity. It isn't clear though that being a sport would mean being in the olympics.
Also, according to Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, a sport is defined as (among a lot of other things): "a source of diversion." I'd be inclined to say that includes chess. On the other hand, oftentimes, a sport is considered to require serious physical activity, which is a standard chess can't really meet.
Chess is an esport, and here is an argument for esports to be considered sports:
https://hornet.fullcoll.edu/why-esports-should-be-considered-a-sport/
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.
Page 15
What about page 15?
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.
So your position is that it doesn't have to be competitive. We can leave that part out if we like, right? What about entertainment, can we leave that part out too? And skill, what about that part?
If we can pick and choose which parts of the definition we like, or don't like, we can simply say a sport is any activity....... well, ok, just any activity. Right? Can we even leave that part out also?
How about a sport is, literally, every thing. Not just every thing, but all words, both known and unknown. Use your imagination.
Okay. Skill can be mental or physical related. Physical isn't affecting the word skill. This isn't an opinion. This is grammar.
And chess can be played for entertainment, just like any other sport.
Chess is a different than almost every other sport, and this shouldn't mean it isn't a sport. Yes, one tends to only gather evidence where one looks, but I believe I haven't done this, at least enough to have a profound impact on my opinion.
What possible benefits are there to defining chess as a "sport", even though it does not require any physical skill or co-ordination? To get it into the Olympics? We already have our own Olympics, international team competitions, a World Championship, a World Junior Chamionship, a Seniors Championship, National Championships, parallel competitions for women only, many, many tournaments, and thousands of clubs with inter club matches and internal competitions. How would defining chess as a sport improve on that? This thread is no more than an attempt by one individual to impose on all of us his personal view of what is and is not a sport.
You're right. I do want to prove that chess is a sport. Although I won't make you believe it is. I also see no harm in defining chess as a sport. Some forums try to prove points, therefore sparking discussion. That is the benefit of creating this forum. Again, if you feel offended by the content of this forum, let me know. I'm sorry.
"It doesn't matter whether it is sometimes competitive"
He means that chess isn't always competitive and can be played for fun.
And that's true. But all sports ARE physical. All definitions have that part. Chess is not physical. It's mental. The physical parts of chess can be completely eliminated. That's not possible for sports. Which is why chess cannot be a sport.
Even the source he provided lists chess under games, not sports.
If a "sport of the mind" happened to meet the criteria of a sport (without the comparison of it with other "physical sports" in order to eliminate bias), it should be regarded as such.
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.
So your position is that it doesn't have to be competitive. We can leave that part out if we like, right? What about entertainment, can we leave that part out too? And skill, what about that part?
If we can pick and choose which parts of the definition we like, or don't like, we can simply say a sport is any activity....... well, ok, just any activity. Right? Can we even leave that part out also?
How about a sport is, literally, every thing. Not just every thing, but all words, both known and unknown. Use your imagination.