Why do either one have to win? I know that's the format, that's the procedure. But what if they both resigned, feeling like neither one deserves it. I think most people know the best chess player in the world is, and will not be, the world champion.
They have to win so there's someone that's world champion of chess obviously
I believe if they both resigned he one who resigned first wins
But it could be the other way around where the person who resigns last wins
Why do either one have to win? I know that's the format, that's the procedure. But what if they both resigned, feeling like neither one deserves it. I think most people know the best chess player in the world is, and will not be, the world champion.
They have to win so there's someone that's world champion of chess obviously
I believe if they both resigned he one who resigned first wins
But it could be the other way around where the person who resigns last wins
I know that's the format. But it seems like the one who resigns first would lose. My question is what would happen if they both resigned simultaneously. Out of principle. Both of them knowing they are not the best in the world.
Ding or Gukesh? Who will win ...
FIDE. it will definitely make money out of this somehow
Why do either one have to win? I know that's the format, that's the procedure. But what if they both resigned, feeling like neither one deserves it. I think most people know the best chess player in the world is, and will not be, the world champion.
They have to win so there's someone that's world champion of chess obviously
I believe if they both resigned he one who resigned first wins
But it could be the other way around where the person who resigns last wins
I know that's the format. But it seems like the one who resigns first would lose. My question is what would happen if they both resigned simultaneously. Out of principle. Both of them knowing they are not the best in the world.
I think they know it. but they still want to be champion
what would happen if they both resigned simultaneously. Out of principle. Both of them knowing they are not the best in the world.
I think chess is the only sport in the world where this kind of bizarre nonsense has a chance of being taken seriously.
Imagine the same argument for tennis, or basketball, or whatever. Anyone suggesting that finalists should resign "out of principle", "knowing they are not the best in the world". Anyone coming up with this would be ridiculed endlessly.
what would happen if they both resigned simultaneously. Out of principle. Both of them knowing they are not the best in the world.
I think chess is the only sport in the world where this kind of bizarre nonsense has a chance of being taken seriously.
Imagine the same argument for tennis, or basketball, or whatever. Anyone suggesting that finalists should resign "out of principle", "knowing they are not the best in the world". Anyone coming up with this would be ridiculed endlessly.
Not the only sport just one of the only few sports
Oh no...
Gukesh is on a tear right now and Ding seems to be the kind of high strung type who will need to get that under control in order to focus enough to be competitive.
what would happen if they both resigned simultaneously. Out of principle. Both of them knowing they are not the best in the world.
I think chess is the only sport in the world where this kind of bizarre nonsense has a chance of being taken seriously.
Imagine the same argument for tennis, or basketball, or whatever. Anyone suggesting that finalists should resign "out of principle", "knowing they are not the best in the world". Anyone coming up with this would be ridiculed endlessly.
Not the only sport just one of the only few sports
This just speaks to why chess is not a sport. Imagine tennis, basketball, or any sport where one side regularly resigns, or resigns out of principle. It just doesn't happen. It's unsportsmanlike.
In sports, you play until the end, no matter what. Take any example, maybe competitive running. You will regularly see people literally run until they collapse or faint just to come in dead last place, rather than quit.
Contrast that to chess, where if someone is down a pawn, they will resign. Part of sports is fight until the end, no matter what. Part of chess is quit the moment something isn't exactly quite right.
what would happen if they both resigned simultaneously. Out of principle. Both of them knowing they are not the best in the world.
I think chess is the only sport in the world where this kind of bizarre nonsense has a chance of being taken seriously.
Imagine the same argument for tennis, or basketball, or whatever. Anyone suggesting that finalists should resign "out of principle", "knowing they are not the best in the world". Anyone coming up with this would be ridiculed endlessly.
Not the only sport just one of the only few sports
This just speaks to why chess is not a sport. Imagine tennis, basketball, or any sport where one side regularly resigns, or resigns out of principle. It just doesn't happen. It's unsportsmanlike.
In sports, you play until the end, no matter what. Take any example, maybe competitive running. You will regularly see people literally run until they collapse or faint just to come in dead last place, rather than quit.
Contrast that to chess, where if someone is down a pawn, they will resign. Part of sports is fight until the end, no matter what. Part of chess is quit the moment something isn't exactly quite right.
If it is considered a sport in some places then in some places it is sport
A sport is more or a game or competition not just physical activity if it was only that then other things like certain types of gambling wouldn't be a sport
If it was just physical activity you wouldn't have to think in any sport but allace unfortunately for you not all sports require physical activity
what would happen if they both resigned simultaneously. Out of principle. Both of them knowing they are not the best in the world.
I think chess is the only sport in the world where this kind of bizarre nonsense has a chance of being taken seriously.
Imagine the same argument for tennis, or basketball, or whatever. Anyone suggesting that finalists should resign "out of principle", "knowing they are not the best in the world". Anyone coming up with this would be ridiculed endlessly.
Not the only sport just one of the only few sports
This just speaks to why chess is not a sport. Imagine tennis, basketball, or any sport where one side regularly resigns, or resigns out of principle. It just doesn't happen. It's unsportsmanlike.
In sports, you play until the end, no matter what. Take any example, maybe competitive running. You will regularly see people literally run until they collapse or faint just to come in dead last place, rather than quit.
Contrast that to chess, where if someone is down a pawn, they will resign. Part of sports is fight until the end, no matter what. Part of chess is quit the moment something isn't exactly quite right.
If it is considered a sport in some places then in some places it is sport
A sport is more or a game or competition not just physical activity if it was only that then other things like certain types of gambling wouldn't be a sport
If it was just physical activity you wouldn't have to think in any sport but allace unfortunately for you not all sports require physical activity
This isn't the 15th century. All sports require physical activity. There are no exceptions. Per the definition of sports.
Saying not all sports require physical activity is like saying not all rectangles require 4 sides. The physical activity part is what makes sports, sports.
what would happen if they both resigned simultaneously. Out of principle. Both of them knowing they are not the best in the world.
I think chess is the only sport in the world where this kind of bizarre nonsense has a chance of being taken seriously.
Imagine the same argument for tennis, or basketball, or whatever. Anyone suggesting that finalists should resign "out of principle", "knowing they are not the best in the world". Anyone coming up with this would be ridiculed endlessly.
Not the only sport just one of the only few sports
This just speaks to why chess is not a sport. Imagine tennis, basketball, or any sport where one side regularly resigns, or resigns out of principle. It just doesn't happen. It's unsportsmanlike.
In sports, you play until the end, no matter what. Take any example, maybe competitive running. You will regularly see people literally run until they collapse or faint just to come in dead last place, rather than quit.
Contrast that to chess, where if someone is down a pawn, they will resign. Part of sports is fight until the end, no matter what. Part of chess is quit the moment something isn't exactly quite right.
If it is considered a sport in some places then in some places it is sport
A sport is more or a game or competition not just physical activity if it was only that then other things like certain types of gambling wouldn't be a sport
If it was just physical activity you wouldn't have to think in any sport but allace unfortunately for you not all sports require physical activity
This isn't the 15th century. All sports require physical activity. There are no exceptions. Per the definition of sports.
Saying not all sports require physical activity is like saying not all rectangles require 4 sides. The physical activity part is what makes sports, sports.
Sure then why are some sports excepted that don't require physical activity like chess lmao
If chess wasn't a sport that would be true
But unfortenently it is in some countries
what would happen if they both resigned simultaneously. Out of principle. Both of them knowing they are not the best in the world.
I think chess is the only sport in the world where this kind of bizarre nonsense has a chance of being taken seriously.
Imagine the same argument for tennis, or basketball, or whatever. Anyone suggesting that finalists should resign "out of principle", "knowing they are not the best in the world". Anyone coming up with this would be ridiculed endlessly.
Not the only sport just one of the only few sports
This just speaks to why chess is not a sport. Imagine tennis, basketball, or any sport where one side regularly resigns, or resigns out of principle. It just doesn't happen. It's unsportsmanlike.
In sports, you play until the end, no matter what. Take any example, maybe competitive running. You will regularly see people literally run until they collapse or faint just to come in dead last place, rather than quit.
Contrast that to chess, where if someone is down a pawn, they will resign. Part of sports is fight until the end, no matter what. Part of chess is quit the moment something isn't exactly quite right.
If it is considered a sport in some places then in some places it is sport
A sport is more or a game or competition not just physical activity if it was only that then other things like certain types of gambling wouldn't be a sport
If it was just physical activity you wouldn't have to think in any sport but allace unfortunately for you not all sports require physical activity
This isn't the 15th century. All sports require physical activity. There are no exceptions. Per the definition of sports.
Saying not all sports require physical activity is like saying not all rectangles require 4 sides. The physical activity part is what makes sports, sports.
It says physical exertion and skill but technically chess is a skill and in otb tournaments can actually involve physical exertion not always exercise though
But heads up thinking is exertion and chess is a skill
There always has to be one odd duck out of the rule book chess is that odd duck
This isn't the 15th century. All sports require physical activity. There are no exceptions. Per the definition of sports.
Saying not all sports require physical activity is like saying not all rectangles require 4 sides. The physical activity part is what makes sports, sports.
Being an online woodpusher, you obviously have no idea about OTB chess, and the exhellent physical stamina and fitness one should have to compete at the highest level.
This isn't the 15th century. All sports require physical activity. There are no exceptions. Per the definition of sports.
Saying not all sports require physical activity is like saying not all rectangles require 4 sides. The physical activity part is what makes sports, sports.
Being an online woodpusher, you obviously have no idea about OTB chess, and the exhellent physical stamina and fitness one should have to compete at the highest level.
I don't disagree. But that's not what makes sports, sports. You said "should" have. But it's not a requirement. Sports REQUIRE physical activity, chess does not.
There are plenty of chess players that exert zero physical effort when playing chess. There are no sports where that happens. None.
Gukesh will get the world champion title most likely. Ding's recent performance hasn't matched up to Gukesh's recent performances.
what would happen if they both resigned simultaneously. Out of principle. Both of them knowing they are not the best in the world.
I think chess is the only sport in the world where this kind of bizarre nonsense has a chance of being taken seriously.
Imagine the same argument for tennis, or basketball, or whatever. Anyone suggesting that finalists should resign "out of principle", "knowing they are not the best in the world". Anyone coming up with this would be ridiculed endlessly.
Not the only sport just one of the only few sports
This just speaks to why chess is not a sport. Imagine tennis, basketball, or any sport where one side regularly resigns, or resigns out of principle. It just doesn't happen. It's unsportsmanlike.
In sports, you play until the end, no matter what. Take any example, maybe competitive running. You will regularly see people literally run until they collapse or faint just to come in dead last place, rather than quit.
Contrast that to chess, where if someone is down a pawn, they will resign. Part of sports is fight until the end, no matter what. Part of chess is quit the moment something isn't exactly quite right.
Super irrelevant.
You can pick some other sport you don't consider a sport. Like bridge or poker or backgammon or anything. Imagine an argument that the finalists of the worlds championship should both resign "out of principle", "knowing they are not the best in the world".
It's just complete nonsense. As it is complete nonsense for chess too.
The worthy winner of the world championship is the guy who wins it. Not some other guy who didn't even participate because he just quit.
Why do either one have to win? I know that's the format, that's the procedure. But what if they both resigned, feeling like neither one deserves it. I think most people know the best chess player in the world is, and will not be, the world champion.