Chess is sport?

I can just tell you, YES

Chess is a SgPaOmReT.

Sure. Trust me; I´m a Dogtor.

hey hey,don't forget there are international tournaments like fide, Olympic is for sports that use physical energy

chess is a sport. sometimes people say that it isnt a sport because it doesnt make you sweat but i sweat after i make a bad move and realize it

Sweating has nothing to do with something being a sport. Most people don't sweat during bowling, archery, darts, billiards, curling, or shooting sports. People also don't usually sweat while racing hot air balloons, fishing, or axe throwing. There are lots of sports where people don't sweat because they aren't physically strenuous. But they require physical skill.

A sport requires physical skill. Performing the physical dexterity or talent or ability. Chess requires no physical skill. Zero. In fact, you can sit back and have someone else make the moves you say to make and it's still a perfectly legitimate game of chess.

In golf (or any other sport) having someone else perform the physical tasks for you is not allowed.

chess is for nerds 

people call chess a mental sport, but in that way it’d be correct you are competing against someone

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

Yes, chess requires physical energy.

its a sport . And here is proofs - https://www.google.com/search?q=is+chess+is+a+sport&oq=is+chess+is+a+&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqBwgAEAAYgAQyBwgAEAAYgAQyBggBEEUYOTIKCAIQABiGAxiKBTIKCAMQABiGAxiKBTIGCAQQRRg8MgoIBRAAGIYDGIoFMgoIBhAAGIYDGIoFMgYIBxBFGDzSAQg1MDc0ajBqOagCALACAA&client=ms-android-samsung-gj-rev1&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

See chess is a sport just click the link for proof

A mutually agreed upon definition of Sport would help in deciding.

Idk in my mind a sport requires moving your body

The idea of "Sport"  is so ambiguous it's worthless. If sport were viewed as a continuum, people can identify the extreme end of the continuum, they just can't agree on where the cut off for the other limit should be, because they can't agree on what "sport" actually is. So,that pretty much ends this thread.

Yes. When it was concluded chess is not a sport, that was one of the reasons. If I recall there were about 8 reasons that could not be overcome to make chess a sport. That was one of them.

Chess does not require any body movements. It only requires relaying the information in your brain, your desired move, to some sort of chessboard representation. Which is why the rules of chess allow for no physical participation. All sports require moving the body (skill) in some way. Chess has no such requirement.

Sports are contests of physical skill, chess is a contest of mental skill.

A google search defines the word Sport as "an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment".

Chess does not qualify as a sport because it does not involve physical exertion.

In other words, using the inquiry that guarantees the most superficial understanding of the question settles all debate.

.
I don't think so.

.
Of course, if one uses Google and knows how to research, it takes less than a minute to turn up a serious effort to define sport and answer whether chess might meet the criteria: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00948705.2018.1520125.

.
Of course, every time this topic comes up, serious questions get buried by those who favor facile answers. Moreover, paywalls vex most posters.

The conclusion behind the paywall:

Whereas the controversy concerning presence of physical skills in mind sports is itself relatively easy, the controversy concerning the definition of sport is much deeper because it touches the very fundament of Exclusivist vs. Inclusivist debate. Both parties might find the opponents’ definition of sport not correct (too narrow or too broad) and the opponents’ arguments systematically begging the question. Thus I believe one cannot solve this debate by means of conclusive theoretical argument. I’m not asking if ‘mind sport is a sport’ but rather if ‘mind sport should be regarded as sport’. The answer is a consequence of our choice between broad and narrow definition of sport. This choice is a matter of some traditions, preferences, practical and institutional considerations, and so on, and not purely theoretical investigations. However, it is still possible to evaluate opposing solutions and make some prognosis concerning the future development of the notion of sport.

I consider exclusivism and revision inclusivism as the two most important positions that emerge as a result of the analysis of the mind sport syllogism. I have tried to consider the theoretical aspect of the controversy in an attempt to identify the reasons why I consider the revision variant of inclusivism as at least an equal rival of exclusivism. This kind of inclusivism may become the dominant conception of sport in the future.

Being rooted in linguistic habits - especially in Anglo-American culture - is the main advantage of Exclusivist position. These habits are reflected in the institutional solutions and also have an impact on the philosophy of sport. On the other hand, Inclusivist position offers an attractive and theoretically uniform view over the entire domain of institutionalized games of skill.

Although the current status of this controversy might be characterized as a stalemate, I think that in the future a change is not only desirable, but also probable. I refer here to certain changes that, taken together, are a premise for a serious discussion and possible revision of the concept of sport, such as

the emergence of the term ‘mind sport’ and its growing popularity;

the integration of mind sports (so, we are discussing the sport-status of the entire group of disciplines rather than of the individual discipline);

the growing importance of e-sport (which is a natural ally of Inclusivist);

the emergence of new of competitions (including chess-boxing) and increasing flexibility in creating new sports and in modifying the rules of existing sports; and

the increasing appreciation of diverse traditions of sport (a departure from Eurocentrism in sport and in sport studies).

I suppose that these phenomena will contribute to the growing importance of the discussion concerning the sport-status of mind sports and, along with the analogical discussion concerning e-sports, will also contribute to rethinking the concept of sport. It is difficult to predict the result of the discussion, but the atmosphere of openness to revise the concept of sport is palpable.

My point of view in regard to the evolution of our notions and institutions is that we are rather in the middle of history than at the end of it - our categories are not final. As noted by sociologists of sport (Delaney, Madigan, [ 2] , 10), ‘Years ago, the notion of badminton as a sport would have caused great laughter. Today, badminton is not only considered a sport by some people, it is an Olympic sport!’ In this context, a revision of the concept of sport suggested by Inclusivist does not seem so radical, and it is possible that, in the future, in relation to mind sports, exclusivism will sound just as grotesque as ‘exclusivism’ sounds in relation to badminton. However, for this change to happen, both the knowledge concerning the essence of the controversy and its possible solutions should be widespread.

Philosophers of sport may play an important function in this process, but this, however, requires a special approach. Trying to solve definitional problems mainly by checking the meanings of the relevant terms in the dictionary (especially in the dictionary of the language from where the relevant terms originate) will probably conserve the existing traditions and linguistic habits, but being open to different traditions supplemented by logical and conceptual analyses could enable critical consideration of the existing dictionary meanings by offering, where necessary, rational revisions of the concepts.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00948705.2018.1520125

In short, the exclusion of chess because it fails to meet physical criteria is logical, but it rests on assumptions that are culturally grounded. Likewise, the argument that chess is sport is logical, although proceeding from somewhat different assumptions. The debate cannot be resolved conclusively.

Based on the previous discussions, it was concluded chess is not a sport. Pretty much every time this comes up, the same conclusion is reached. Instead of taking just 2 or 3 definitions, or cultural references, it makes more sense to consider ALL of them.

The reasons that chess is not a sport far outweigh the reasons for it being a sport. All the reasons that chess is a sport are flimsy at best (it takes physical effort to move the pieces). So does staring at a wall. That also takes physical effort and burns calories.

But the reasons chess is NOT a sport aren't so easily refuted. Such as running up against the definition of words, the cultural aspects, but most importantly the nature of the game of chess itself. It's purely a mental pursuit.

Unless of course we are talking about bullet chess or something which does take physical skill.

Correction, you reach the same conclusion. You do so by ignoring my arguments and restating your assumption as if it were the logical conclusion. You then proceed to argue against the weakest points on the other side, From these you offer the most ludicrous analogies yet seen in the thread.

.

In this case, I am offering only a glimpse at how serious inquiry might proceed/has proceeded contra the facile approach in post #87.

.
Eventually, I leave the thread because all reasonable discussion has ended.

.
Some of what I quoted in post #89 replicates posts I've made in other similar forums.
Perhaps if you could untangle what you think you are saying with "definition of words, the cultural aspects". You rely on English dictionaries, and only the least comprehensive ones. There are other countries in the world beyond England and the United States. Some of these have been quite clear that chess is a sport.

.
Your "exclusivism" is not the only valid point of view.