Chess isn't a sport

Please click the link and post your comment there too. Thank you.

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/is-chess-a-sport-or-a-game

Ray Duque III, GMBD

This is a good essay!

Chess is a great game of all time

Except only about half of it is actually true. Saying things like "chess takes real physical endurance" is simply false. It's not true. Many games of chess are played with ZERO physical endurance. As pointed out before, the rules of chess allow players to not even physically participate at all. A more accurate statement would be something like "chess can sometimes take some physical endurance".

Another missed point is training. There are MANY chess players who do not train at all. None. Zero. They play for fun because they know how the pieces move. I would say it's likely MOST chess players do not train. Training is not what makes something a sport. Most recreational sports enthusiasts likely do not train either.

The point about the IOC has already been addressed. The IOC recognition is why chess is NOT a sport. Considering the hot water they are in right now for comments about an Iranian athlete makes the IOC less than credible. Afterall, the IOC doesn't recognize sportfishing as a sport. They don't recognize NASCAR either. Some of the biggest and most popular sports, yet the IOC doesn't recognize them. Why? Because they have no credibility whatsoever.

The fundamental difference between a board game like chess and a sport is physical participation. A board game usually allows someone ELSE to perform the physical parts of the game. A sport NEVER allows someone else to perform the physical parts of the sport. Board games and sports are very different and distinctive recreational activities. For a reason.

no

instead of classifying between sport and random game that takes intellegience lets classify between pyhsicail sport and mental sport cause they both take the same amount of skill just one your running and one your memorizing patterens and making moves

Who says sports that are physical don't require the same amount of deep calculation and pattern recognition? 'Mental sport' is a self-serving, non-standard, fabricated definition of a term to make and argument appear true. It is a way of forcing a conclusion by defining it into existence. Sports are not just mental or physical. All physical sports require mental calculations and seeing several moves ahead. In these so called 'mental sports' lack of the physical part renders them incomplete to meet the definition of sport. Chess is a game.

but if you use your arguement of lack of pysicail part then you clearly have not reasearched because chess gms burn up to 6,000 while football players burn anywhere from 1200-2000

Could you please add a link to the research?

I think a lot of chess players get really defensive when people say it isn't a sport because they think it's derogatory, and feel devalued and potentially insecure. The fact of the matter is that whether it's a sport or not is a question of definitions, not merit. Playing an instrument isn't a sport either, and is a very good thing to do. It can earn money, it takes large amounts of skill, and it increases intelligence. The music industry is incredibly competitive, and competitive music with judges does exist (eg. school choirs and bands). Despite all that, it still is not considered a sport. It's also important to remember that games, sports, and music all use the verb 'play.' Again, words are just words. We need to be ok with accepting classifications without getting upset.

At the same time, there is a legitimate argument to be made that intellectual sports fit the definition of sports. I just wanted to make it clear that there's nothing wrong with chess not being a sport, and there's no good reason to be biased towards chess being classified a sport as a chess player. If you ask yourself, "why am I debating this?" and your answer is "because it's unfair to chess players to not get recognition as athletes" instead of "intellectual sports seem to fit the definition of sports," then your argument is in bad faith. Chess players can be recognised without being considered athletes, and the issue would be with the recognition/prestige of chess, which is an entirely different subject.

the chess gms came from a speech in 2019 by Robert Sapolsky
American academic and neuroscientist and the football players came from NFL team nutritionists, who are often Registered Dietitians (RDs) integrated into clubs, determine caloric expenditure by monitoring player energy demands, body composition, and fuel usage
 

A link would be enough

Update: as a self-proclaimed expert in using Google I have found some reviews on Sapolsky's "six to seven thousand calories" stuff and I personally would not mention it in any serious discussion

That makes absolutely no sense. The amount of calories burned has zero to do with something being a sport. The stress of driving in rush hour traffic burns more calories than a sport like billiards. Marathon running burns a lot of calories, bowling does not. Soccer burns a lot calories, throwing the javelin does not. Is one not considered a sport because the other burns more calories? Of course not. The amount of calories burned is irrelevant.

Just being alive burns calories. The calories burned from playing chess have NOTHING to do with physical exertion and skill, the things that make something a sport. Unless you want to claim the precision and training and talent involved in physically placing a knight on it's square is so delicate, so exquisitely unique and difficult, that a lot of calories are burned to do it better than anyone else.

Research? Since when is believing nonsense from Google searches research? The 6000 chess game calorie burn has long been debunked. IT does not stand up to scientific scrutiny.

Please click the link and post your comment there too. Thank you.

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/is-chess-a-sport-or-a-game

Holy 961 comments

But only 47 of value