CHESS: A Sport or Just Game?

When we go for a prize were  honor and supremacy is at stake. Were physical fitness works hand in hand with mental determination and analytical skills then I would say its a sport. If it is played to spend the wee hours of the day or to just enjoy it for friendships sake ...then its a game.lol

 Fast reactions is a mental ability rather than a physical, it is how fast your brain can process an action that has occured and send a response to your body. Endurance is important in chess as well as I have explained via the kasparov karpov match.

If a game where physical skill is what matters the most, is what a sport is, I still hold car racing would then be disqualified as a sport.

 Well said!that's why I consider chess not a sport nor just a game....CHESS is a sports game!!!!!!

Game not sport.

Our good yet deceased friend cheater_1 made a thread about this. Enjoy:

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/chess-is-not-a-sport

If you are a fan of cheater_1, then you will find this very enjoyable. If not, read it anyway. You might find it funny.

According to be t-shirt it's more than just a game, it doesn't say anything about whether it's a sport or not though.

Reb said it well on the first page, I don't think chess is a sport, but only a game. What does it really matter? We all like it despite what it is called, and yes undeserving things have been called a sport before *cough* curling *cough*

Baseball, did you see the game last night? It s refered to as a game and yet it is a sport. So it is Both a game and sport.

There has always been a push for Chess to be considered a sport. Why? Because SPORTS is where the money is. Sponsers spend millions on sport, but not on games.

When the Soviets ruled the chess world, essays on this question were in good supply in their press. Being the bright fellows they were, they came up with good arguments for the affirmitive. A few of these essays appeared in Chess Life&Review.

In my opinion chess is a game with very strong sporting aspects. If we accept this, what's the difference if someone says it's still not a sport?

i say its a sport an "indoor" sport .....

It's hard to classify something that you can drink a beer while doing it a sport!

The whole problem is that some find the term "sport" to be superior to that of "game", hence the title: "sport or just a game".

Of course there can be some overlap between the two terms, depending on your personal opinion and criteria. For instance, in my opinion, football can be considered a game, because it can be a pleasant pastime. But it's most of all a sport, because of its physical demands. I consider chess a game, for it doesn't require any physical effort. Of course, in many long lasting matches endurance may come into play, but that would also hold true in long lasting Monopoly championships. 

If the competitive factor is your mean criterion, then chess can be a sport. But then again, so can Monopoly.

All I'm saying is chess players shouldn't be afraid of the term "(just a) game". Chess is sometimes called 'The King of Games'. I don't see why any chess enthousiast could disagree with that qualification. 

to me, it's a game.  not "just" a game, but a great time honored game. but not a sport. 

I think chess is a sport, a mental sport, but still a sport! Because you can train at the sport and get better, it's not a game like snake and ladders.

Monopoly is a game because of the dice, chance, there is no chance in chess, only your mind against his, there is no dice. Of course there is skill is monopoly and the skilled players often beat the unskilled players. Backgammon is a good example, of a dice chance with skill! Although I consider Backgammon a game to me, just like I do monopoly they are games in my mind. I would happy bet money on myself winning a game of chess against one person, i would be less keen on doing the same thing with 6 people on a monopoly board.

Monopoly cant be considered a sport because it doesnt require skill to play it well. It is completely a game of chance. Chess on the other hand is determined by who has more skill and knowledge of the game. Just like all of the other things we consider sports. It also doesnt take the same kind of endurance or concentration that chess does. You merely roll a dice and wait your turn. That requires 0 concentration. Chess on the other hand requires intense concentration and endurance especially at higher levels, and actually forces your body to consume large amounts of energy just as sports do. I remember hearing that Fischer lost 10lb after a particularly intense chess game, and I know he would always eat big meals after he was done.

You merely roll a dice and wait your turn. That requires 0 concentration.

Just thought i'd say phelon, thats rubbish, if your doing ZERO concentration against players concentrating, you will lose, simple as that!!! There is a reason the same person usually wins!! you can't Zero concentrate and win, doesn't work that way!!!!

In monopoly it requires close to zero concentration to do your absolute best. Sure you have to make a few decisions on whether or not to buy something but that is it.

Dictionary definition of sport: "Physical activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively.".

The dictionary doesn't consider Chess to be a sport unless you consider it physically enduring which could be argued, but the fundamental principles behind a game of Chess are not of a physical nature. The fact that in most cases a game of Chess is won by the more tactically/strategically gifted player rather than the finest physical specimen technically disproves it as a sport according to the dictionary definition.

My counter argument is that if Chess cannot be widely considered a sport by the general public then why can snooker, darts, motor 'sport' or ten-pin bowling, where in most cases the best player is not determined by any physical advantage, but an advantage of sheer skill or superior equipment?

Whether it's a sport or not it surely deserves some financial input as if it were considering the great advantages of playing. Chess teaches people many things that lots of sports could never do and can be competitive at any age, gender or size. Even simple things like patience, endurance and focus can all be extremely beneficial for many other activities including exams, work and sport.

In my opinion it shouldn't matter whether Chess is a sport or not, there is no reason other than a lack of funding that Chess should not be considered a viable event in the Olympic 'Games'. It would spark an interest on a massive scale which would have great benefits in the future as the population of Chess players would increase dramatically. The top Chess players are as brilliant at Chess, if not more so, as Peli was at football, for example.

When I speak to people who know very little about Chess they seem to have some pre-conceived illusion that you are good at Chess if you can play it. We all know that the real learning only begins when you have learned the rules and to understand the benefits of Chess; people must realise this fact. If the general population can be shown the good that Chess does for the mind then that would go a long way to convincing them to participate.

In the early to mid 1900's and maybe earlier, the question was "Is chess an art form. or not." Interesting how society changes. 

It depends on how you treat your "playing".

If you enjoy crashing your opponents ego, then it resembles a bloody sport.

If you are having fun all the way, it's a game.

If you compete for a trophy, it's a sport.

If you enjoy the beauty of deep chess thought and strange piece schemes it could be rare art.

Everything can be treated as everything. Even life can be treated as a game...Let's not get stuck in semantics