played by that great athlete, phil taylor - come on you cannot clasify darts as a sport, he may be very skilled at directing a miniature arrow at a batch of pig bristles, but can hardly retrieve the darts without a rest or 2.
Darts is most definately a sport in all definitions of the word (unfortunately) although they may not be considering darts or chess for the olympics, they are sports. The same way javelin is a sport, as is darts.
Err...stacking DOES require physical activity and highly co-ordinated physical activity at that.
(and chess is a GAME, not a sport. What's next? Will we be making Parcheesi and Monopoly sports,too?)
If they would make monopoly a sport it would be one. It has nothing to do with whether you do or don't agree. Chess is sport = fact
The persons, who think, that chess is not sport, anymore, cannot be considered as a sportsmen, anyway...
They eliminate oneself from such great competition mind muskle activity!
They are just envious losers...
Bravo to the International Olympic Committee!
We have insiders into it...
solo act activities find themselves the hard task to become a "sport".
in a more widely defenition of sport, I can find chess as a sport. still in a more comun defenition I think chess doesn't fit as a sport (mind sport hell YES, but simply no as a "pure" sport).
same think as to many ppl who claim poker to be a sport, it AIN'T! (and i'm a poker player)...
flame whatever u like, just giving my opinion...
rarely watch this foruns.
regards
There is no pure sport!
We compared apples with oranges...
All of them grew at our sport garden.
If I were a supreme court judge or someone who has a lot of power and were asked to read the comments in this forum and render a judgement based SOLELY on these comment--I would have to think it over for about 2 seconds before I rendered a judgement of CHESS IS NOT A SPORT.
It is quite clear that the NON SPORT advocates have clobbered the SPORT advocates over the head with pure logic and facts. The sport advocates just cant support their position enough and resort to juvenile tactics like "my dictionary is better than your dictionary". It kind of reminds me of ERIK saying "only look at the sites that I give for website ranking and traffic volume, but dont look at cheater_1's websites because his are not credible".
I think this debate is now over. I am motioning that chess henceforth be described as a game, or battle of wits, or mind vs mind, or such.
Once again, one can be a quadrapalegic and become quite successful at chess. CAN ANYONE EVER SAY A QUADRAPALEGIC WAS A SUCCESSFUL DART PLAYER?
Of course not. I rest my case FOR THE SECOND TIME.
touche!
I will reduce them to quivering masses of jello in short order.
That was funny!
I remember in the last thread, someone said to be a sport, it needed an active deffense.
Games = Golf, Darts, Pool, chess ect Because its all turn based if you think about it.
Nascar is a sport because you can literraly block the car behind u or just run him off the road. Thats an active deffense to me.
Cheater_1, there is a good reason why you are NOT a person who has any say about anything. You do not consider evidence contrary to your opinion. In other words you are unable to see outside of your biased tunnel vision.
What I have read here thus far.
Not a sport:
Sports are physical like darts, and bowls, and archery
IOC definition doesn't count (for a number of reasons)
Dictionaries describe sports in such a way that chess can not be a sport
If you think chess is a sport you are an idiot
Is a sport:
IOC describes it as such
Even if you limit to physical realm chess uses same amount of physical activity as darts.
The mental side of chess can be exhausting
Oxford Dictionary doesn't limit sport to physical
What about some special olympics that remove most of the physical aspect of a sport?
What about exception sports like pistol shooting?
If you think chess is not a sport you are an idiot.
Couldn't be bothered going through all the posts again but that is the gist of what I've read so far from both sides.
The anti-sport lobby seems to imply that sports are better than games. This seems to be based on no more of a qaulification than the physical activity involved. This creates an interesting desire for counter arguement in people that don't think that physical activity trumps mental activity.
This last point I make I think is an important one. Take ANY sport and start telling people that it is NOT a sport it is JUST a game. The resulting arguement will not be one based on what my dictionary says vs. what yours (you) say, but rather one that states the case of the "sport" being better than just a "JUST".
Further more, I don't know why you trust your logic Cheater_1 seeing how you can't rely on it to win you a game of chess. I believe your posts make the most sense when I consider your brain has atrophied after years of letting a computer do the thinking for you.
What I have read here thus far.
Not a sport:
Sports are physical like darts, and bowls, and archery
IOC definition doesn't count (for a number of reasons)
Dictionaries describe sports in such a way that chess can not be a sport
If you think chess is a sport you are an idiot
Is a sport:
IOC describes it as such
Even if you limit to physical realm chess uses same amount of physical activity as darts.
The mental side of chess can be exhausting
Oxford Dictionary doesn't limit sport to physical
What about some special olympics that remove most of the physical aspect of a sport?
What about exception sports like pistol shooting?
If you think chess is not a sport you are an idiot.
Hence the reason you are not a supreme court judge or somone with power. If you were, you would base your decision on what you knew before the case began, in this case a couple of definitions (and no sources even for those). The above is a fairly accurate summary of this thread. maybe this isn't quite objective, but it seems your reasons are very generic, while those opposing your opinion are very specific. Also, while those opposing your opinion counter your remarks, you just reiterate what you said in the first post over and over. Oh, and touché is used to acknowledge when your opponent has a good point. Unless I missed something, that wasn't the idea of your post.
Well, seeing I have been CALLED OUT and said my sources are incorrect, I shall EMBRACE my critics and use THEIR SOURCES to make my point of the difference between sport and game.
The FIRST definition of SPORT in the OXFORD dictionary reads this noun 1 an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others. http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/sport
The first definition of GAME is this: noun 1 an activity engaged in for amusement. http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/game_1
Now, my little trolls prepare to be reduced to quivering masses of strawberry gelatin.
The SINGLE best way to prove a point is to analyze the EXTREMES. If an instance satisfies BOTH extremes, then ALL points inbetween MUST be true. Basic logic here, people.
Tennis satisfies sport and game. We all agree on that. Competition. Doubles or singles. Sweat. Physical Skill.
Monopoly is a game but not a sport. We can all agree on that, right? There is skill involved, it is played against others, but what is it missing? Hmmmmmmm? Physical exertion? BINGO! Physical exertion is a NECESSARY component of whether something can be called a sport.
EXERT verb 1 apply or bring to bear (a force, influence, or quality).
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/exert
Uh Uh UHHHH, I'm one step ahead of you all. IM A CHESS PLAYER don't forget. I think 5 moves into the future. I know where youre going. "But I'm exerting my chess pieces towards you. I'm bringing to bear my forces against yours. I'm influencing my pieces."
"Also, cheater_1, look at the second defintion of exert: make a physical or mental effort. I'm making a mental effort in exerting my pieces."
See people, I DONT HIDE FROM THE FACTS. I dont sweep contrary facts under the carpet. I CONFRONT THEM HEAD ON AND SMASH THEM into tiny pieces.
You may be making a mental effort, but you must be making a PHYSICAL EXERTION inorder for it to qualify. Even for a 100 year old person, moving a triple weighted chess piece involves NO exertion whatsoever. One can argue that propelling a 50 gram dart 7' 9.25" to a specific location on an 18" dart board involves EXERTION. Moving a chess piece that weighs a FRACTION of that to a distance of several inches DOES NOT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM CONSTITUTE EXERTION.
Whew! That was tough. I just exerted myself typing and researching all that. I'm sweating now. Hey, perhaps typing to you TROLLS is a sport. Yes, it is. I physically exerted myself (I am sweating) this is a competition (me against chess.com), and I am using my infallible skills and wit to DOMINATE you all. What do you think about that, users of chess.com. Hey, are you there? Chess.com users? Where'd you go. AHHHHH I see you all. You have been reduced to quivering blobs of strawberry jello. Well, I'm pretty hungry. MMMM MMMM MMMM strawberry, my favorite flavor.
Over simplification and ignorance seems to be the foundation of your reality cheater_1.
The skill involved in a game like monoply is limited as it is a game based higher on the luck than skill side. It is the high luck component of the game that removes it from the realm of sport.
Do a little research into what the first creators of dictionaries thought of them.
Dictionaries describe language they do not prescribe definitions.
If you'd like cheater_1 we can swap sides in this arguement. I'd be more than happy to show you how to argue chess as NOT being a sport. If you would oblige me by stating a case saying that it is.
Surely you must be able to do this if you are thinking truely like a chess player (of course we all know you are just a spectator) what is the pro-sports BEST possible move here? ... of course if you wanted to be amusing you could say - resign. But that dodges the issue.
Your entire arguement hinges on sports needing to be physical. Some sports have been shown to have a clear lack of physical exertion, you have not addressed this issue. All you have done is say that the level of physical exertion is greater than in chess. Surely there must be a line that has to be crossed before that point is reached? Oh no wait! your definitions only say that physical exertion needs to exist, NOT how much.
The only way I think you can walk out of this thread, winning this arguement, is if you let someone else do it for you. Switch sides, sabotage the pro-sport side by applying your silly logic. Let me win this debate for you.
Could cheater_1 be any more of a trolling idiot? I submit that he could not.
The case is pretty simple:
"The FIRST definition of SPORT in the OXFORD dictionary reads this noun 1 an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others. http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/sport"
Perhaps, cheater_1, you'd like to refer to the actual Oxford English dictionary, whose website is http://dictionary.oed.com. I don't know what 5th grade resource "askoxford" is, but it's not the Oxford English dictionary, which defines sport:
I. 1. a. Pleasant pastime; entertainment or amusement; recreation, diversion.
d. Participation in games or exercises, esp. those of an athletic character or pursued in the open air; such games or amusements collectively.
(I've omited parts b and c because they aren't pertinent). Notice in part (a) there is no mention of physical exertion. In part (d) the phrase "especially those of an athletic character", which to me indicates that there are sports that are not of an athletic character.
The reference for the OED definition of sport:
http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50234330
To save you the trouble of looking up "recreation", there's no mention of physical exertion there.
Thanks for playing, cheater_1, don't let the door hit your quivering jello behind on the way out.
when playing a sport, it should be played to the end.
however when playing chess, you can resign or play to the end, your choice
people who demand that others resign are possibly bad sports