Are chess players athletes? 💨

thats suspicious. 

november.. 24th

i dont know how to respond to this but we take 70 years old..  anyway its ok

why did you keep clapping to that november 24th.. anyway sorry for mean comments bro

i want this thread also to get stopped.. pls dont talk against facts.. its true chess is a sport.. 

@Ziryab.. will you lock this thread will lead to nowhere just nonsense argument

its ok sir will talk later bro

its bro -____________________- not sis. x

I'm guessing he meant "sir" 

no he said like sis.x right bro i mean its not that its bro thats what i mean Optimissed sir

btw i forgot to say one most important thing:-sorry everyone if rude anywhere in this argument lets keep peace

I agree. Way too many ad hominem attacks. Make your point passionately. When you attack the other person personally, things just go downhill. It's really easy to say things here that you would not say to their face. 

Well in that case chess would NOT be a sport, by definition. You just said over the board matches "require" the pieces to be physically moved/exerted. Your exact words, you said that.

Problem is, there is no such requirement. There IS a rule that allows the opposite though. The official rules of chess allow anyone who is unable or unwilling to move the pieces to have someone else do it for them. Chess is a game that does NOT require physical exertion or effort. So it would be the complete opposite of a sport. 

So I'm not sure where you get the idea my comments are "contrarian" when I'm describing exactly what the game of chess is. It is literally a game played entirely in the mind. This is a fact. The pieces and board, and clock, and chairs and tournament halls and scoreboards and everything else are not necessary, they are not required. They exist if people want to use them, but they are not REQUIRED. The game still exists,, and can be played, without any of those things. 

But try that in sports. Try playing baseball with no bat and no ball. How, exactly, does one play the sport of baseball with no bat and no ball? How, EXACTLY, does one advance to first base without running, without hitting a ball that doesn't exist with a bat that doesn't exist? I would love to hear an explanation. 

I know everyone else like to point out how consistently wrong you are, so I thought this would be a good opportunity for you to redeem yourself. When you say religious rites do not require movement of your body, what do you mean? You can at least get this one right by listing all the religious rites you know of that require no body movement. 

Or how about this, there are hundreds of religious rites, how about just listing 7 that don't require any body movement. That wouldn't be a majority or anything, but it would at least show that you didn't get this one completely wrong. 

Oh, I almost forgot, what definition of sport are you using that says it must require stamina? Because I'll bet even you can think of a few things that require stamina that aren't sports. 

I think you are probably right. A good argument is one where both sides make reasonable points. When one side can't even understand what is being said, I suppose it's no longer an argument. 

You are unaware of blind chess, which often were a way to show mastery of chess? Or are you unaware that both sudoku, crosswords as well as any stem exam can be done on time. But neither in chess nor in the puzzles or subjects above are anybody really impressed by quick but half done solution.

That's one element of a good argument. Another is that neither arguer makes personal comments about or attacks the other(s). 

Didn’t you just a couple pages before talked about how we shouldn’t separate mind from the body?! But now, instead of thinking being a physical process, it’s the movments of the horsies and hitting your clock instead of your opponents which make chess a sport?