Chess isn't a sport

Then take the skill and physical part out. Assume a sport did not require the physical component, assume a sport did not require skill. How would chess be a sport in that case? Because it burns calories, like sleeping? Or because it's competitive, like Monopoly? Some other reason perhaps?

Take out all the things that some people say aren't needed for something to be a sport and what are you left over with? Would we then see chess on TV at a sports bar? Would we then see chessboards sold in the sporting goods section at a store? I think probably not. Even if we granted EVERY wish to the "chess is a sport" folks, even if EVERY barrier were removed, I'd like to know what would suddenly change.

I think instead what would happen is things like Monopoly, Clue, checkers, backgammon, even crossword puzzles and tic tac toe would all then be classified as sports.

PS: All sports have an element of luck. The issue of luck has been one of the reasons that people say chess is not a sport, very little if any luck.

Yeah, thinking burns more calories. In fact our brain is the most calorie needed organ in our whole body. Research suggests that a chess player could burn up to 132 calories per hour.

Almost nobody watches chess in bar, because it's less popular than football, basketball and baseball. And last, but not least it's hard to concentrate on chess game when it's loud, which usually is in bars at evenings.

I'd like to hear your opinion on Esports. It doesn't require physical activity too, but it's called esports.

P.S I noticed you dislike, just because someone explained why he thinks chess is intellectual sport.

My genuine advice: no need to dislike everybody who disagrees with you in life. Almost nobody wants to argue with you. Good luck

sport as a game/competition/activity that requires physical exertion.

We, the people, use on a daily basis many convetional tools, such as languages, currencies, games and sports rules, etc. These conventional tools are enforced by institutions, academies and the such, which, as all are aware, are not 100% reliable. Yet, we do rely on these, cos, guess what, it's so very simply "that or nothing".

Following your idea would lead to a World and a life where people would smash each other's head at every single Scrabble game, since no one could any longer claim "yes it's a word since it's in the dictionary" (and reversed).

So so so, "sorry sir", I rather do keep it up with stuff such as the Comité International Olympique (aka IOC) to tell me and everybody what's a sport and what is not a sport, than to have to live under the ruling of the like of you, who's ego makes them believe their personnal judgement do over rule everybody and everything about any topic.

We all are tempted sooner or later to go wild opinions like that, and it's only good we have got such tools such as them "not 100% reliable authorities" in order to arbiter disagreements.

there are people who have never played chess, never seen a game of chess played, these people do not understand what chess truly is. Society can be wrong, even for subjective matters. Should society get to decide subjective matters? the answer is a clear no, because the only way for society can function is if everyone is entitled to their OWN opinion on subjective matters, if society could make a final decision on subjective matters by virtue of the majority's opinion, things would slowly get out of hand. eventually, people would be prosecuted for having an opinion that is different from the majority. My point is that, for society to function, when it comes to subjective matters everyone must be able to have their own opinion. Society and government have no say in subjective matters, because that is based off of opinion, something which everyone is entitled to. Therefore, chess is a sport (in my opinion)

There are no valid arguments for chess being a sport. All reputable dictionaries define the word sport as a game/competition/activity that requires physical exertion. Chess is obviously not a physical sport by any means.

A large survey conducted on chess.com determined that 78% of people believe that chess is a sport. And while you may say that it is biased, it is not. The reason is that the population on chess.com is very well educated about chess, about the mental effort it requires, and about the similarities and differences from other sports. The general population has no idea how much thinking it takes to play chess, and thus their opinion is not shaped by facts, only feelings. When you combine this with the fact that the IOC and SportAccord (Both have lots of experience determining what is and is not a sport) say that yes, chess is a sport, this leads to a clear conclusion: Chess is a sport. Also, as I stated earlier, the Webster's Random House Dictionary defines a sport to be diversion; recreation, which would include chess. This disproves both claims in your initial post:

1) All reputable dictionaries define a sport to be a game/competition/activity that requires physical exertion (The Webster's Random House Dictionary is most certainly reputable)

2) There is no valid argument that chess is a sport, I have been presenting a valid argument this entire time.

Thus penguinboy9 is incorrect.

This debate is closed.

If 78% of the people on chess.com think chess is a sport that may be one of the most compelling reasons yet why chess is NOT a sport. There is no place where there would be a more biased view towards the idea that chess is a sport. I would assume it would be something like 95% think chess is a sport. If only a marginal majority of chess players think chess is a sport, what's that say about the general population? I mean, when they aren't laughing at the idea, that is.