Are chess players athletes? 💨

As the rules of chess state, there is no requirement for someone to use their hands to play chess. There are rules governing people that DO use their hands, but nobody is obligated to use their hands. So there isn't any "hand eye coordination" necessary. A proxy may be used to play a game of chess, where someone may simply call out the moves or otherwise let someone else know what the intended move is. 

So this intentional nonsense about chess requiring hand/eye coordination but math exams dont is just random babbling. If using your hands is not required for taking math exams, why would it be required for chess? And math exams don't require exercised mental skills? jeez. 

“IMO somebody else making the moves for you would not be sporting.”

this brings up the interesting concept of: do you consider blindfold chess a sport? (or, if you want to rephrase it, are blindfold chess players athletes?)

Abstract:
We have studied the physiological consequences of the tension caused by playing chess in 20 male chess players, by following heart rate, heart rate variability, and respiratory variables. We observed significant increase in the heart rate (75–86 beats/min), in the ratio low frequency (LF)/high frequency (HF) of heart rate variability (1.3–3.0) and also a decrease in mean heart rate variability with no changes in HF throughout the game. These results suggest a stimulation of the sympathetic nervous system with no changes in the parasympathetic system. The respiratory exchange ratio was rather elevated (over 0.89) at the start and significantly decreased during the game (0.75 at the end), indicating that energy expenditure progressively switched from carbohydrate to lipid oxidation. The changes in substrate oxidation and the sympathetic system seem to be due to high cognitive demands and bring new insight into adaptations to mental strain.

Not only that, but chess players that are disabled. For example they have a neurological disorder, or have lost their hands, or use of their hands. 

What a contorted mess. I would think it would be a lot easier to just say "yeah, that makes sense, chess can't be a sport. duh"

@CooloutAC: Watching TV is a sport because it requires physical skill and coordination. It takes a lot of hand-eye coordination to change channels fast. 🤦 🤦 🤦

None of that matters. A sport does not have to be competitive (cycling/swimming) nor does it need a learning curve (cycling) nor does it need to be an organized competition (cycling for leisure)

Why not fishing, given your emphasis in other threads on physical skill? Casting a dry fly forty feet away so that it lands perfectly on a spot about the size of the lid on a jar of peanut butter requires a great deal of physical control. If you miss, and especially if the fly slaps the water, the trout is spooked and the game is over.

Jim and I told our physics teacher that we were studying the kinetic energy of chess pieces while we were playing blitz in physics class. This was in the 1970s before anyone played blitz, of course, so it’s a myth. Even so, I don’t think that what you mean when you say chess is based on physics.

I love how we both can believe that chess is a sport but for completely different reasons. Problem is that chess, bridge and other mind sports are sport regardless if they are played in super speed or slow mo, it is their nature as competitive game of skill with high skill ceiling which makes them sports (in my and probably a lot of others people who consider chess a sport opinion). 

Also, chess have logical thinking and reasoning. And while I can think of that many sport where reasoning is obviously a big part, pretty sure orienteering should do the trick. There is no definition or reason for it not to be part of a sport.

You should know that there are math olympiad and other competitions and if you think it is mostly about knowledge than you could same same about chess. The only difference would be that chess is more of a open ended question which needs more... reasoning to solve.

But all of this is beside the point! The point was that exams could be very stressful, could lead to so much stress that students lose weight and need to go to the hospital. The exams and exam weeks can be very exhausting... and yet nobody call them a sport. Unlike beer pong which follows after exams.

So: mental exhaustion which cause bodily harm != physical activity.

I guess I didn't say it the right way. I was talking about the combination of skill and athletic ability hiking in and hiking out for hunters. For fishing, yes, absolutely there is physical skill. But not quite the athletic component. I would say the same thing for things like darts or pool. Sports because of the physical skill needed, but not very athletic.

Maybe you are right. I have seen people struggle mightily when trying to reel in a fish, or have to net it quickly because of the non barb hook rule. I'm sure other more knowledgeable people could weigh in on that, but I guess there is some athletic component to it. 

Chess, not so much. 

Depends on the sort of fishing.

Casting to docks from a bass boat is not physically demanding, though accurate casts take some skill. Wading waist deep in fast water, or on slick rocks in shallow water can be physically demanding. Landing a steelhead can take an hour of intense physical effort.

I’ve landed large mouth bass with barbless hooks. The required skill is extremely fast retrieval of the line—stripping instead of reeling.

Some of my bass flies:

No.

I distinguish sport from athletics. There are sports that are not athletic. No contradiction in making that claim, but I get a lot of dictionaries thrown at me.

I fundamentally reject terms like mathlete. But, I embrace the notion of mind sports.

Ofc

I accept the perspective of sporting bodies operating in many countries with many languages that are not English that chess is a sport. However, if you will look at my posts in two or three “is chess a sport” threads going back four to five years, you will discern that I have never accepted arguments based on calorie consumption during chess play, nor notions of physical fitness being beneficial.

My arguments have highlighted other factors, including older usage (see the OED), organization of competition, the benefits of training, ideas about sportsmanship at the heart of the battle. The psychobabble that attempts to explain my presumed motivation (financial has been a common suggestion) is simply preposterous.

If my work as a coach has any influence, it is this: I want my students to put in their best efforts when they play chess. I’ve seen too many young players who do not care enough about winning to make an effort to do so. If you are not trying to win, there is no reason to train. There is minimal reason to seek knowledge (a few, but very few, care for knowledge for its own sake).

Chess is physically demanding. That, however, has no bearing whatsoever on whether it is a sport.

I’ve been taking a third round bye in weekend Swiss events since a year or two before I turned 50. I simply do not have the physical stamina and mental focus after insufficient sleep that carried me through graduate school in my late-20s and early-30s. The Sunday morning games always matter if I am to do well in an event, and the opponents are generally stronger than those I play on Saturday.

The lead local TD calls it the “old man bye”, but he is not particularly original with that label.

After your first sentence, your post subtracts from your contributions to this thread. There is simply no reason to resort to psychological speculation grounded in nothing more than your own imagination. Read any of the 1300+ posts on my blog. Point out evidence of resentment if you find it.

As usual, you couldn't be more wrong. Sport, by modern definition, is quite different than it used to be. By modern definition sport emphasize physical skill or athletics. It didn't used to. The argument could be made that chess used to be a sport, because of the definition of sport centuries ago. But today the definition is different. The topic would be much different if the title were "did chess players used to be athletes" vs "are chess players athletes". IF we say athletes are people that play sports. 

Ziryab is certainly not confused or contradicting himself. I disagree with him on todays modern definition of sport and how that relates to chess, but he has never (to my knowledge) ever contradicted himself. If anything, he's the opposite of contradictory. He's extremely consistent. 

I suggest you pay more attention to what people say and focus less on what you wish they had said. 

I was going to ask how does this not make perfect sense. Mind sports seems like a very appropriate term for mental competitions. And there are indeed sports that are not very athletic. 

But Optimissed beat me to it. The way what you said doesn't make sense is to tie oneself in knots.