Chess as a sport???

a kid skating down the road or perhaps someone riding their bike to work/school is not a sport.  It IS a physical activity which allows it to be turned into a sport when you add competition. 

I can train all I want at something competitive and that doesn't make it a sport.  If you think chess is a sport, then you would have to classify other games as sports... Poker, Starcraft, CoD: Black Ops, Farmville, World of warcraft etc... all competitive GAMES but nobody is going to call them sports.

Wiki isn't the best place to find information.  Lets try the Oxford dictionary..

British Version

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/sport

American

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/sport

Inconnux, I appreciate your reply to my post.  I agree that if Chess is considered a sport, it would open the door to many other things needing to be classified as a sport that really shouldn't, such as the various games you mentioned.

I'm not advocating that chess is a sport.  I'm okay with it not being considered one.  What I AM advocating is that 1) the definition of a sport is too constrictive, and not encompassing enough, and 2) whether or not chess is considered a sport, it does benefit from sportsman like behavior.

Chess doesn't meet my definition of a sport, no.

My definition?

"It's all just a game until someone loses an eye. Then it's a sport."

Apparently, the IOC (International Olympic Committee) has recognised chess as a sport since the last century. For those say it's not a sport because it's a game. Is it not true that a game of football is still sport. A game of basketball is still sport?

Those Red Rider BB guns can be dangerous.

Hmmm...

I hope chess will never have "sportsman-like" behavior. At least not the actual one, the one with hooligans in soccer/rugby stadiums, sailors sawing adversaries' boat drifts and other joyful things.

The facts that brains are not easy to sabotage by subtle means, and chess is not full of passion for watchers, powerfully allows us what some people call "sportsmanlike behavior" even in high level tournaments, which is absent of quite a few (non-chess) sports.

True Irontiger, very true. There are a lot of comments on this topic. Much more than I expected lol.

Let me be clear.  When I say "sportsman-like" behavior, I am refering to a healthy competitive attitude that is both ruthless, yet with integrity and within the rules and code of the competition.  It is one where the competitor is looking for a good, respectable game.

After Game 6 of the famous Fischer v. Spassky match, though Fischer won, even Spassky stood up and applauded Fischer for his brilliant play.  Fischer declared that due to this, Spassky was "a true sportsman".

That is the idea I convey behind the idea of sportsman-like behavior.

El tiro esta conciderado como deporte, y no se requiere una gran condición fisica para practicarlo.

To the op, I don't think chess can be a sport for the same reason poker isn't a sport; there is no physical contact or exertion necessary to play it.

Chess is a game by definition (an extremely difficult, complex, artistic, and beautiful game matched by no other).

Just because you played in some tournament and some fool kicked you in the knee beneath the table doesn't refute the logic either. Physical contact isn't necessary at the chess table to play and win. 

Shooting is considered a sport, and it doesn't need great physical conditioning to participate (my attempt to translate koroloi in post #110).

For me, I think it's a sport if it's a high-pressure competition where the winner or loser is determined on the field of play -- so shooting, backgammon, chess, soccer, gridiron football, all sports.  Figure skating, beauty pageants, and BCS football -- not sports.  (BCS football's games are arguable, yes -- but the championship is unquestionably just a beauty contest.)

In chess, you determine the wins, losses, and draws on the field of play. Only very rarely do you need a referee or have a contraversy.  Most importantly, luck plays virtually no role -- in poker, football, or basketball, luck plays a part; either the cards, the wind or the referees are in your favor, or they're not, and it's largely out of your control.  Every game of chess you lose is your own fault.  The only time you get lucky is when your opponent is playing poorly -- the blunder. 

Or sometimes he'll get a phone call or go into labor or something and have to resign... but it's unusual for luck to play a part like that, especially when it's important.  It all depends on how you define sports.  For me, though, chess absolutely works.

I guessed so. I just wanted to point this out though, that sportmanslike behavior is not wildly encountered in all sports.

Good logic here from all people. Wouldn't the TD be the referee though for chess. In chess tournaments, the tournament directors always have to go through some sort of argument that occurs. Just thought I'd put that out there :).

Mr_Lund. That is very true. Although there was  a lot of tension at the time, both players did applaude each other which if ask me was the greatest sportsmaship I have ever seen.

sportsmanship, referees, and tension aren't necessary when defining a game as a sport. Those elements may be often present in sports, but they do not make a game a sport.

If YOU define a sport as any of these things then perhaps chess is a sport to you, but chess is rightfully defined as a game.

1 "an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment"

chess definitely has the "and skill...." but no physical exertion. Yes long games can be physically exhausting, but to play the game, there is no necessary physical exertion. This is why chess and poker and backgammon are games, while golf and football and swimming are sports.

Chess is both a game and a mental sport to me. Not physical sport. Mental. It makes me feel mentally strong lol. And I believe that it is not an actual sport. Like I said before, I just wanted to have a friendly conversation, nothing bad :).

I can say "chess" is hardly a spectators sport. The excitement and thrill resides more within the players themselves.  Chess is a more of a study. Something like a college course.  

I could refer to my #17, and to the similar argumentation of #62 and others. The problem is the definition of "sport", which you can always choose to include chess.

A good test to see if you are not hypocrite in your definition if it includes chess is whether one of the followings would go along chess (and if yes if you are ok with it) :

-checkers, bridge, backgammon, or any game played a bit seriously where people think before playing -> if you define it by a 'mind sport' / competitive spirit

-cooking -> if you define it by the amount of calories burnt

-watching horror movies -> if you define it by the stress level

I'm confused with this last comment Irontiger? What do you mean exactly?

His point is that chess is or is not a sport depending on how you define "sport." Ofc if you go with Webster's or any reputable dictionary's definition, chess in fact is not a sport.

It's like saying Humans aren't animals, depending on how you define "animal." Are we talking about frontal lobe utility? Or are we talking about any living organism? Depending on the definition, the answer will change. But of course, humans are animals...