You can say both kuya. Kasi ang chess maging sport competition pero pede rin namang maging favorite pastime.
CHESS: A Sport or Just Game?
Sort:
its a game in which we think about useless things like color complexes, we waste our time playing a game we can never master, we revere people that devote their lives in pursuit of achieving an impossible dream of creating a beautiful work of art that only a small percentof the population can even appreciate, for very little money, and is of no consequence to the world in general. our attempts to legitimize this game, our holy grail, we pompously abhor the plebeian masses who ignorantly live their lives without knowing what it is to behold a brilliant Tal sacrifice, or appreciate an artfuly played bronstein midgame, or wonder at the beautiful, natural simplicity of a Capa endgame. we brag about our esoteric understanding of a lucean position, or that we have 400 opening variations memorized til at least move 10, we can calculate variations and "see" 15 moves deep, we can speak of Nimzowitsch's "Hypermodern" revolution or Fischer singlehandedly taking on the soviet chess machine, heck just en passant is enough to baffle the philistine masses...in the end its just a game that we take way too seriously and i wouldt have it any other way
kerplow wrote:
TheGrobe wrote:
kerplow wrote:
TheGrobe wrote:
I'd say that a good definition of a sport in this context is any activity that has a competitive nature, whether individual or team, is objectively scored or subjectively judged, and, most importantly, for which either cardiovascular or muscular conditioning will improve your ability to perform said activity.
I've played several sports, so this isn't a biased question, but why is physical conditioning so important to your definition of sport? What does it say about the core of what sport means? To me, that's just a convention we've agreed upon. If chess had become a major league sport, then we'd be saying physical aspects don't define sport. Btw, chess requires immense physical stamina if you're playing long games.
I'll also add that convention is critical to establishing some common ground with respect to the semantics of this question and of language in general. Without it, we'd all just be running around pulling specious definitions of the word "sport" off the Internet and loosely interpreting them to mean what we want th...
...oh, right.
Couldn't the same be said for people who follow customs without understanding what they're talking about? Before you get your panties in a ruffle, let me explain. You're saying that I let sport be "loosely" defined, whereas I'm saying that sport involves specific things that I believe are it's main components. I do not believe that the requirement of physical exertion is something inherent in the what is required to partake in sports.
You're saying that customs should be one of the things that govern what we accept and do not, whereas I'm saying that we should look at what things mean and not measure it based on what a large number of people believe. Universal truth is not measured in mass appeal my friend.In this case, that statement holds true because there is nothing inherent in partaking in SKILLED STRATEGY GAMES THAT ARE COMPETITIVE that says "you gotta run".
You are thinking of the major sports like Soccer, etc, whereas I'm looking at the definition of what can and cannot be calleda sport.
I wont bother to insult you, but please listen to what I'm saying before you begin mocking me.
I think you misread me -- no mocking was intended.
I think we agree that what we are really talking about is the definition of sport and that, but if we're going to throw out convention then we can define it to mean whatever we want.
I'd suggest that a critical test might be to take this question down on the street and see how many passers by think that chess is a sport. When it comes to language common usage and understanding trumps all. This is why I lend more weight to "convention" than the numerous conflicting dictionary definitions that have been posted in this thread.
Ziryab wrote:
TheGrobe wrote:
Well, my point is that there is nothing special about chess with respect to this discussion that isn't also true of poker, scrabble or even go-fish...
You're talking about where to draw lines, but you cannot see the line between chess and go-fish. Good gracious. Flyfishing is sport, but go-fish is 100% luck, and is simple childish amusement. Poker, and scrabble at the highest levels, on the other hand are rare games, like chess, that have elements of sport.
I'm saying that if a line needs to be drawn between Soccer, Go Fish and Chess, then Chess and Go Fish are one on side of that line (games) and that Soccer is on the other (sport).
Can you really argue that Soccer and Chess are sports, while Go Fish is not? I think that it's ludicrous to even try.
Incidentally, there is some strategy to Go Fish -- it's very simplistic, but counting cards better than your opponent can help you swing the odds in your favour. Must be a sport.
The following is a list of "sports" recognised by the IOC but not currently played at the Olympics. Take this out onto the street and ask people to suggest which "sports" had got on the list by mistake and I bet chess and bridge would top the list .
May 5, 2009
0
#107
I'm saying that if a line needs to be drawn between Soccer, Go Fish and Chess, then Chess and Go Fish are one on side of that line (games) and that Soccer is on the other (sport).
You are limiting sport to athletics, which is one of several common definitions, but not the only one.
You are throwing all other games together without any distinguishing characteristics.
Soccer is a game. Fishing is a sport. Chess is an endurance contest.
I mastered Go Fish when I was five: that's why there are no tournaments. Eight hours of chess can be grueling competition that requires strategy, planning, hours and weeks and months of preparation, and disciplined physical conditioning.
The only reason to divorce centuries of international competition of this sort from the term "sport" is to insist on a truncated and myopic definition. Within this definition, you'll have a hard time negating the physical skill required in "Ants in the pants" from that of rugby.
A game can be also a sport so chess is both
TheGrobe wrote:
I think we agree that what we are really talking about is the definition of sport and that, but if we're going to throw out convention then we can define it to mean whatever we want.
I'd suggest that a critical test might be to take this question down on the street and see how many passers by think that chess is a sport. When it comes to language common usage and understanding trumps all. This is why I lend more weight to "convention" than the numerous conflicting dictionary definitions that have been posted in this thread.
Those "conflicting dictionary definitions" are determined by massive research into the consensus about a word's meaning, so they are the convention. And it follows from this that the narrow definition of sport fails on the first counterexamples: usage of sport in non-athletic contexts, such as hunting, fishing, motorsports, "sporting chance," "sportsman," etc. This can only mean that convention does not define 'sport' as narrow as this discussion has; the dictionaries merely back this up. Thus, if we argue like Quine that behaviour gives us the only data to determine meaning, we find that in the case of the word 'sport' such behaviour suggests it is used in a much greater context than this discussion would have us believe.
Besides, I wouldn't rely on an informal survey of the people in the streets... some folks did one in America and found people who thought all Canadians lived in igloos. So no, I wouldn't lend any weight to that.
If the definitions were based on consensus about the convention they would hardly be conflicting. The reason I suggest that a good theoretical test would be to take it to the street to ask your average passer by is because this will give a far better indication of what the general consensus is with respect to linguistic conventions than any google search can. I think we all know deep down, that with the exception of a few like-minded individuals who tend to congregate in these threads, what the nearly unanimous results of such a survey would be.
May 5, 2009
0
#111
TheGrobe wrote:
I think we all know deep down, that with the exception of a few like-minded individuals who tend to congregate in these threads, what the nearly unanimous results of such a survey would be.
Depends upon how long our respondends had been out of their iglus
" Chess is just a game." - Boris Spassky
If a WC can admit such a thing we all should be able to.
Chess is Life 
kerplow wrote:
I don't know what is so difficult to grasp about the side of the argument that says chess can be considered a spo.....
Zzzz..., just kidding, i agree :D
consalvo wrote:
Can chess be classified a sport or just a game? This was the question my 10 year old son asked me when i started teaching him how to play chess.If you were confronted with the same question, how would you reply?
It's only a board game just like Checkers
chessandlaw wrote:
The following is a list of "sports" recognised by the IOC but not currently played at the Olympics. Take this out onto the street and ask people to suggest which "sports" had got on the list by mistake and I bet chess and bridge would top the list .
Lifesaving is a SPORT??? lol I had no idea!
I used to be a lifeguard but I didn't see any kind of sport in making sure people were safe! 
I posted this earlier, but I don't see it listed. Sorry if this is double posted??
I think Chess is *both*. I think it is a sport and a game. It is a game because it can be played for fun!
I can see it being a sport in that it is something that takes skill to win and play well. There are competitions to see who is the best! :)
Hitting a home run can be considered an extremely fast math computation. The batter hits the ball without doing any math. It can come to him naturally, or with practice. The baseball player is using a different intelligence, but accomplishing the same thing as a math major would if he solved the equation on a piece of paper.
People can approach Chess with different skill sets, whichever part of the brain they may be using. :)
That's what I think! :)
Chess isn't a sport because it does not require much physical interaction. IMO a sport involves some type of cardio. I would argue that, as pointed out before, fishing & golf are not sports. I associate sports with movement and activity. If any old competition can be labeled a sport than what is a sport? Just a competition? You certainly wouldn't argue video games are a sport would you? Would you send your children to sports camp over the summer to have them play Halo 3 or Call of Duty IV?
May 5, 2009
0
#119
kelleytr wrote:
fishing & golf are not sports.
It's helpful to see where the argument ends up. Until you've rowed my boat and landed the trout that I catch, you know not of what you speak.
When golf was my principal hobby, I walked five miles most Saturdays.
Both.
Definition of sports from wiki: "
Sport is an activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively. Sports commonly refer to activities where the physical capabilities of the competitor are the sole or primary determinant of the outcome (winning or losing), but the term is also used to include activities such as mind sports (a common name for some card games and board games with little to no element of chance) and motor sports where mental acuity or equipment quality are major factors. Sport is commonly defined as an organized, competitive and skillful physical activity requiring commitment and fair play. Some view sports as differing from games based on the fact that there are usually higher levels of organization and profit (not always monetary) involved in sports. Accurate records are kept and updated for most sports at the highest levels, while failures and accomplishments are widely announced in sport news."
And obviously chess is a game.