How about Sports Illustrated.
@long_quach
Just call the Eos 21 Dojo @ (703) 939-3210 and ask for the dumbest sifu they have. He'll tell you everything about the VanDorn / Stevenson fight. Whatever he tells you just believe the opposite 🙃
Chess is a Sport.
Sort:
long_quach wrote:
theswooze wrote:
theswooze wrote:
GarbageDealer wrote:
theswooze wrote:
GarbageDealer wrote:
theswooze wrote:
GarbageDealer wrote:
theswooze wrote:
GarbageDealer wrote:
I'm not "supposing" ignorance, I'm pointing it out., because people choose to ignore all the data that confirms it is a sport.
There's countless confirmation sources from academia all over the world, sports organizations and even the olympics ready for your reading pleasure on your smartphone's search bar.
Hell, even this website calls it a sport, I can't even believe people are debating things solved so long ago in the past.
speaking of ignorance, the only problem with your argument is that it relies on a logical fallacy. google 'argumentum ab auctoritate.
Speaking of ignorance further, it's not my fault a logical fallacy just so happens to point at the truth in this specific scenario, google "is chess a sport" and you'll find all my claims about countless sources and academia to be true.
While I am making an argument appealing to authority, these people know more about sports and chess than a thousand like you(or me) put together.
and doubling down by making the very same error in logic does not help you look to be more intelligent.
My guy, you're the one here who thinks knows better than known sports experts, chess masters and professionals of different branches related through all of chess history. You flatter me by commenting on my intelligence from your position.
my god you are dense. google it and read it again, moron.
The very website you are playing chess on disagrees with you, moreover, this qualifies as me appealing to authority again. Doesn't make the piles of evidence those figures provide any less valid or gives you a pass to selectively ignore them.
If your callout of fallacy is so strong, it should be very easy to disprove chess.com, wouldn't it?
should i just try using smaller words with you? would that help?
OK. i will try one more time and if you still dont understand, i give up. a logical fallacy does not prove something is true or not. it simply points out an error in logic which invalidates an argument. you continue to us an argument from authority as your rationale for believing chess is a sport. even after i pointed out the error in your logic, you continue to do so-which, frankly, does nothing more than demonstrate that you are a slow learner. I'm simply saying this: if you intend to prove somehow that chess is a sport, your current argument isnt cutting it because your logic is flawed. you need a new argument. one that isnt logically flawed. get it now or are you still lost?
So you can't prove chess.com is wrong, got it, well, I'm glad we finally agree on something, it's been a delight. Have a good one.
Nov 23, 2023
0
#204
theswooze wrote:
Soufriere wrote:
The Argumentum ab auctoritate fallacy is only present if the cited authority figure is not qualified to make reliable claims about the topic at hand. Reliable authority figures here would include chess GMs/IMs, Chess.com, the IOC and the FIDE. Unreliable authority figures include celebrities, chefs and/or random people espousing personal deep-seated views.
that is absolutely incorrect. in fact, that would go directly against the concept. ask any professor who teachese Logic 101.
"That is absolutely incorrect.... ask any professor who teaches Logic 101", such hubris! The level arrogance in your statement is incredible. Referencing an authority body is not a fallacy.
Appeal to Authority (argumentum ad verecundiam) logical fallacy and Argument from Authority (argumentum ab auctoritate) are the same form of discussion argument in which person producing a claim referencing the opinion of an authority as evidence to support an argument. As a fallacy it’s included onto Red Herring Fallacies group.
This can be a fallacy if the referenced person does not have proper authority.
Â
Introduction to Logic (101)
From a logical point of view, anyone is free to express opinions or advice about what is thought true; however, the fallacy occurs when the reason for assenting to a statement is based on following the recommendation or advice of an improper authority.
U have MAJOR injuries in sports and unless a sprain wrist if at all is considered a major injury then sorry bro CHESS IS NOT A SPORT.
Chess is and will always be a war game
TACTICS 101
Oh soooorry mr authority figure, who gave YOU that tittle sir oh my bad mr authority figure.
Stop nerding out the game.
long_quach wrote:
theswooze wrote:
long_quach wrote:
@Hoffmann713
I already have the right term.
A sport is something of a martial origin.
is baseball a sport? it has no martial origin.
Swinging a club with precise timing is a great way to bash someone's head in.
Hercules killed a lion with a club
I thought you said golf was not a sport. I've always thought the hardest part of golf was swinging a club with precise timing.
long_quach wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
long_quach wrote:
theswooze wrote:
long_quach wrote:
@Hoffmann713
I already have the right term.
A sport is something of a martial origin.
is baseball a sport? it has no martial origin.
Swinging a club with precise timing is a great way to bash someone's head in.
Hercules killed a lion with a club
1. I thought you said golf was not a sport.
2. I've always thought the hardest part of golf was swinging a club with precise timing.
1. Golf is not a sport because it has no martial origin.
2. There is no timing in golf. You can hit the ball any time you want.
In tennis, the ball is in constant motion. Like a bus, if the bus pass you by, you can't catch that bus.
In golf the ball just stay there, you can hit it any time you want.
1. So apparently using a club with precise timing in baseball has martial origin, but using a club with precise timing in golf is not?
2. There is being wrong, and then there is being wrong on a whole new level. If you said the earth is definitely trapezoidal in shape you would have more credibility. THE singular most important thing in a golf swing is timing.
GarbageDealer wrote:
theswooze wrote:
GarbageDealer wrote:
theswooze wrote:
GarbageDealer wrote:
theswooze wrote:
GarbageDealer wrote:
I'm not "supposing" ignorance, I'm pointing it out., because people choose to ignore all the data that confirms it is a sport.
There's countless confirmation sources from academia all over the world, sports organizations and even the olympics ready for your reading pleasure on your smartphone's search bar.
Hell, even this website calls it a sport, I can't even believe people are debating things solved so long ago in the past.
speaking of ignorance, the only problem with your argument is that it relies on a logical fallacy. google 'argumentum ab auctoritate.
Speaking of ignorance further, it's not my fault a logical fallacy just so happens to point at the truth in this specific scenario, google "is chess a sport" and you'll find all my claims about countless sources and academia to be true.
While I am making an argument appealing to authority, these people know more about sports and chess than a thousand like you(or me) put together.
and doubling down by making the very same error in logic does not help you look to be more intelligent.
My guy, you're the one here who thinks knows better than known sports experts, chess masters and professionals of different branches related through all of chess history. You flatter me by commenting on my intelligence from your position.
my god you are dense. google it and read it again, moron.
The very website you are playing chess on disagrees with you, moreover, this qualifies as me appealing to authority again. Doesn't make the piles of evidence those figures provide any less valid or gives you a pass to selectively ignore them.
If your callout of fallacy is so strong, it should be very easy to disprove chess.com, wouldn't it?
Except most all of those reasons have nothing to do with something being a sport. For example, competitive? Not all sports are competitive. And most activities in life that ARE competitive are not sports. Notice how in the first reason the most important aspect of sports, physical skill, is completely glossed over.
lfPatriotGames wrote:
GarbageDealer wrote:
theswooze wrote:
GarbageDealer wrote:
theswooze wrote:
GarbageDealer wrote:
theswooze wrote:
GarbageDealer wrote:
I'm not "supposing" ignorance, I'm pointing it out., because people choose to ignore all the data that confirms it is a sport.
There's countless confirmation sources from academia all over the world, sports organizations and even the olympics ready for your reading pleasure on your smartphone's search bar.
Hell, even this website calls it a sport, I can't even believe people are debating things solved so long ago in the past.
speaking of ignorance, the only problem with your argument is that it relies on a logical fallacy. google 'argumentum ab auctoritate.
Speaking of ignorance further, it's not my fault a logical fallacy just so happens to point at the truth in this specific scenario, google "is chess a sport" and you'll find all my claims about countless sources and academia to be true.
While I am making an argument appealing to authority, these people know more about sports and chess than a thousand like you(or me) put together.
and doubling down by making the very same error in logic does not help you look to be more intelligent.
My guy, you're the one here who thinks knows better than known sports experts, chess masters and professionals of different branches related through all of chess history. You flatter me by commenting on my intelligence from your position.
my god you are dense. google it and read it again, moron.
The very website you are playing chess on disagrees with you, moreover, this qualifies as me appealing to authority again. Doesn't make the piles of evidence those figures provide any less valid or gives you a pass to selectively ignore them.
If your callout of fallacy is so strong, it should be very easy to disprove chess.com, wouldn't it?
Except most all of those reasons have nothing to do with something being a sport. For example, competitive? Not all sports are competitive. And most activities in life that ARE competitive are not sports. Notice how in the first reason the most important aspect of sports, physical skill, is completely glossed over.
long_quach wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
Â
1. So apparently using a club with precise timing in baseball has martial origin, but using a club with precise timing in golf is not?
There is no timing in golf you i d i o t.
The ball is always the same position.
In baseball, in tennis, the ball is constantly moving. It is in a different position at different times.
There is no timing in golf. At all times, the golf ball is in the same position.
If there is no timing in golf why do professionals at the highest level spend countless hours of practice trying to perfect their timing?
If you believe the golf ball is always in the same position, you obviously have never played golf. When Sergio Garcia hit his shot out of a tree, how is that the "same position" as his 3 foot putt he had later in the round?
And if your criteria for sports is that a ball be moving, how often do you have to contend with a moving ball in chess?
long_quach wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
Â
If there is no timing in golf why do professionals at the highest level spend countless hours of practice trying to perfect their timing?
They don't perfect their timing.
They perfect their motion.
The ball is in the same place now and an hour later.
Why are you so stupid?
No, they perfect their timing. THE most important thing in a golf swing is timing. Just ask any good amateur or professional.
GarbageDealer wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
GarbageDealer wrote:
theswooze wrote:
GarbageDealer wrote:
theswooze wrote:
GarbageDealer wrote:
theswooze wrote:
GarbageDealer wrote:
I'm not "supposing" ignorance, I'm pointing it out., because people choose to ignore all the data that confirms it is a sport.
There's countless confirmation sources from academia all over the world, sports organizations and even the olympics ready for your reading pleasure on your smartphone's search bar.
Hell, even this website calls it a sport, I can't even believe people are debating things solved so long ago in the past.
speaking of ignorance, the only problem with your argument is that it relies on a logical fallacy. google 'argumentum ab auctoritate.
Speaking of ignorance further, it's not my fault a logical fallacy just so happens to point at the truth in this specific scenario, google "is chess a sport" and you'll find all my claims about countless sources and academia to be true.
While I am making an argument appealing to authority, these people know more about sports and chess than a thousand like you(or me) put together.
and doubling down by making the very same error in logic does not help you look to be more intelligent.
My guy, you're the one here who thinks knows better than known sports experts, chess masters and professionals of different branches related through all of chess history. You flatter me by commenting on my intelligence from your position.
my god you are dense. google it and read it again, moron.
The very website you are playing chess on disagrees with you, moreover, this qualifies as me appealing to authority again. Doesn't make the piles of evidence those figures provide any less valid or gives you a pass to selectively ignore them.
If your callout of fallacy is so strong, it should be very easy to disprove chess.com, wouldn't it?
Except most all of those reasons have nothing to do with something being a sport. For example, competitive? Not all sports are competitive. And most activities in life that ARE competitive are not sports. Notice how in the first reason the most important aspect of sports, physical skill, is completely glossed over.
Yes. notice how in the very first reason they completely glossed over the physical SKILL portion. The single most important thing in sports happens to be the one thing they ignored the most. Instead, they brought up things that don't even define sports.
long_quach wrote:
How about Sports Illustrated.
How about Sports Illustrated.
How many Sports Illustrated covers have golfers, and how many have chess players? Care to take a guess?
If you you'll notice by FAR the best selling Sports Illustrated issues have covers that have nothing to do with sports. They have scantily clad women in bikinis. Is that a sport?
long_quach wrote:
The reason chess is featured on ESPN is the same reason other non sports are on ESPN. Entertainment. What is the FIRST word in ESPN. It's not sports. It's entertainment. While chess is not a sport, it IS entertainment.
SEPN would have been a better version, it flows better. But they intentionally put Entertainment first, and Sports second.
lfPatriotGames wrote:
GarbageDealer wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
GarbageDealer wrote:
theswooze wrote:
GarbageDealer wrote:
theswooze wrote:
GarbageDealer wrote:
theswooze wrote:
GarbageDealer wrote:
I'm not "supposing" ignorance, I'm pointing it out., because people choose to ignore all the data that confirms it is a sport.
There's countless confirmation sources from academia all over the world, sports organizations and even the olympics ready for your reading pleasure on your smartphone's search bar.
Hell, even this website calls it a sport, I can't even believe people are debating things solved so long ago in the past.
speaking of ignorance, the only problem with your argument is that it relies on a logical fallacy. google 'argumentum ab auctoritate.
Speaking of ignorance further, it's not my fault a logical fallacy just so happens to point at the truth in this specific scenario, google "is chess a sport" and you'll find all my claims about countless sources and academia to be true.
While I am making an argument appealing to authority, these people know more about sports and chess than a thousand like you(or me) put together.
and doubling down by making the very same error in logic does not help you look to be more intelligent.
My guy, you're the one here who thinks knows better than known sports experts, chess masters and professionals of different branches related through all of chess history. You flatter me by commenting on my intelligence from your position.
my god you are dense. google it and read it again, moron.
The very website you are playing chess on disagrees with you, moreover, this qualifies as me appealing to authority again. Doesn't make the piles of evidence those figures provide any less valid or gives you a pass to selectively ignore them.
If your callout of fallacy is so strong, it should be very easy to disprove chess.com, wouldn't it?
Except most all of those reasons have nothing to do with something being a sport. For example, competitive? Not all sports are competitive. And most activities in life that ARE competitive are not sports. Notice how in the first reason the most important aspect of sports, physical skill, is completely glossed over.
Yes. notice how in the very first reason they completely glossed over the physical SKILL portion. The single most important thing in sports happens to be the one thing they ignored the most. Instead, they brought up things that don't even define sports.
- Sports are competitive by definition.
- "The single most important thing in sports" According to you?
- "they brought up things that don't even define sports", yeah, physical demand, competition, skill, sportsmanship, recognition as sport, and doping controls have nothing to do with sports.
GarbageDealer wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
GarbageDealer wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
GarbageDealer wrote:
theswooze wrote:
GarbageDealer wrote:
theswooze wrote:
GarbageDealer wrote:
theswooze wrote:
GarbageDealer wrote:
I'm not "supposing" ignorance, I'm pointing it out., because people choose to ignore all the data that confirms it is a sport.
There's countless confirmation sources from academia all over the world, sports organizations and even the olympics ready for your reading pleasure on your smartphone's search bar.
Hell, even this website calls it a sport, I can't even believe people are debating things solved so long ago in the past.
speaking of ignorance, the only problem with your argument is that it relies on a logical fallacy. google 'argumentum ab auctoritate.
Speaking of ignorance further, it's not my fault a logical fallacy just so happens to point at the truth in this specific scenario, google "is chess a sport" and you'll find all my claims about countless sources and academia to be true.
While I am making an argument appealing to authority, these people know more about sports and chess than a thousand like you(or me) put together.
and doubling down by making the very same error in logic does not help you look to be more intelligent.
My guy, you're the one here who thinks knows better than known sports experts, chess masters and professionals of different branches related through all of chess history. You flatter me by commenting on my intelligence from your position.
my god you are dense. google it and read it again, moron.
The very website you are playing chess on disagrees with you, moreover, this qualifies as me appealing to authority again. Doesn't make the piles of evidence those figures provide any less valid or gives you a pass to selectively ignore them.
If your callout of fallacy is so strong, it should be very easy to disprove chess.com, wouldn't it?
Except most all of those reasons have nothing to do with something being a sport. For example, competitive? Not all sports are competitive. And most activities in life that ARE competitive are not sports. Notice how in the first reason the most important aspect of sports, physical skill, is completely glossed over.
Yes. notice how in the very first reason they completely glossed over the physical SKILL portion. The single most important thing in sports happens to be the one thing they ignored the most. Instead, they brought up things that don't even define sports.
- Sports are competitive by definition.
- "The single most important thing in sports" According to you?
- "they brought up things that don't even define sports", yeah, physical demand, competition, skill, sportsmanship, recognition as sport, and doping controls have nothing to do with sports.
Some definitions include competitive, but not all. The reason I say the single most important thing in sports is physical skill is because that phrase, those words, are used more often than any other defintion. So wouldn''t you agre that is the most important part of the definition?
Some defintions say recreation, some say competitive, some have other criteria. But what is THE most common criteria for sports? It's physical skill, right?
For example, how many dictionaries have "doping controls" as part of the definition of sports? Probably about none.
How about The Soviet Union?
Are they the authority on chess?
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/chess-is-a-sport-9?page=6#comment-97214673
The former USSR Chess Federation, now the Chess Federation of Russia (the officially recognized arm of the FIDE in Russia) can be considered a reliable authority on chess.