I am speaking for everyone out there that knows that chess is a sport. I'm talking about the grandmasters, international masters, even the beginners.
Some people "knowing" chess is a sport provides no real value as an argument.
I can say the same to you. If you think chess isn't a sport, it holds no real value as an argument
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.
Look, I get where you're coming from—dictionaries might say that a "sport" is an activity that requires physical exertion, and on the surface, chess doesn’t seem to involve running around or heavy lifting. But there’s a subtle difference between physical activity and physical exertion that’s worth considering.
Physical activity is any bodily movement produced by the muscles that results in energy expenditure. Now, physical exertion usually conjures up images of sweat, heavy breathing, and muscle strain. But consider chess: while you’re not sprinting, the intense concentration and constant mental stress during a high-stakes match trigger significant physiological responses. Studies have shown that during prolonged chess tournaments, players can burn thousands of calories—sometimes as many as 6,000 in a long game—because their heart rates soar and their bodies react to the mental strain. That’s a form of physical activity, even if it isn’t what we traditionally picture as “exercise.”
Moreover, when we talk about sports nowadays, governing bodies like the already mentioned International Olympic Committee (IOC) and organizations such as SportAccord recognize mind sports like chess, bridge, and draughts as sports. They do this not just because of bureaucratic inertia or money incentives, but because these activities are competitive, follow strict rules, and require a unique blend of skill—mental and sometimes even physical. For instance, the IOC’s inclusion of chess shows that they acknowledge the intense, albeit different, demands it places on the body and mind.
So, while chess might not have the obvious physical exertion of a soccer match, the mental endurance it demands leads to tangible physical responses. It’s not that your muscles are doing heavy lifting, but your body is still working hard under stress. In that sense, I view dismissing chess as “not a sport” just because it doesn’t involve running around misses the bigger picture.
In short, the debate isn’t just about raw physical movement—it’s about the overall competitive spirit, the physiological impact of sustained mental effort, and the fact that a lot of respected institutions now consider chess a sport. I'd say there's plenty room for argument that chess is an intellectual sport that challenges you in ways that are very real, both mentally and physically.
The study that said chess grandmasters would burn up to 6000 calories in a tournament was extremely flawed and has been debunked many times. While it does definitely require massive amounts of mental exertion, we have defined them to be different things and it doesn't fit the definition of physical exertion which is quite literally exerting your muscles. I would definitely agree that it could be put into a different category but it does not fit the definition of sport.
Look, I don't know why you're creating such a big argument over this. Chess is a sport, and you saying it isn't is not going to change a thing. It's not that deep.
Then provide some reasoning?
What do you mean? Arguing over such a petty thing is a waste of time. And if more people agree that it's a sport than you, why don't you accept it? The dictionary shouldn't be your go-to for the definition of something. You should listen to what other people have to say. Everyone except you and select few other people KNOW that chess is a sport. Your conspiracy theories are a waste of time as well. If literally EVERYONE that knows what chess is agrees that it's a sport, then you shouldn't argue because they have more experience than you.
I have cited surveys where most people thought that it was not a sport. Also, most people would use the same definition of sport that I do.
How many people have answered your survey, exactly? I doubt that the experienced chess players did, because they wouldn't waste their time over arguing whether chess is or isn't a sport, because they know it is. Where'd you get the dictionary? GOOGLE. Then go to your precious google and ask it if chess is a sport and then check "most" of the entries, as you say. And there you have your answer
Go look for yourself instead of repeatedly using ad hominem. Also, the dictionary I used was oxford's.
If you used the physical dictionary then pardon me. And also I have checked. Either you're using off-brand Google, or you're just arguing for the sake of it.
Im saying go look and check the two surveys that I sent.
Where is the survey?
Ok so for some reason one of my comments was just removed (probably because I edited it or something) but Crystal0192 responded to it. You can see an article talking about one here: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1459883/adults-recognizing-chess-as-sports-great-britain/ and the other survey here: https://www.reddit.com/r/SampleSize/comments/2dxmvj/results_is_it_a_sport/.
And look, I know this is a lot to ask but can we postpone the argument to tomorrow? I have a lot of work to complete.
I am speaking for everyone out there that knows that chess is a sport. I'm talking about the grandmasters, international masters, even the beginners.
Some people "knowing" chess is a sport provides no real value as an argument.
I can say the same to you. If you think chess isn't a sport, it holds no real value as an argument
There's a difference between providing reasoning and just saying some people know something.
And look, I know this is a lot to ask but can we postpone the argument to tomorrow? I have a lot of work to complete.
Sure!
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.
Look, I get where you're coming from—dictionaries might say that a "sport" is an activity that requires physical exertion, and on the surface, chess doesn’t seem to involve running around or heavy lifting. But there’s a subtle difference between physical activity and physical exertion that’s worth considering.
Physical activity is any bodily movement produced by the muscles that results in energy expenditure. Now, physical exertion usually conjures up images of sweat, heavy breathing, and muscle strain. But consider chess: while you’re not sprinting, the intense concentration and constant mental stress during a high-stakes match trigger significant physiological responses. Studies have shown that during prolonged chess tournaments, players can burn thousands of calories—sometimes as many as 6,000 in a long game—because their heart rates soar and their bodies react to the mental strain. That’s a form of physical activity, even if it isn’t what we traditionally picture as “exercise.”
Moreover, when we talk about sports nowadays, governing bodies like the already mentioned International Olympic Committee (IOC) and organizations such as SportAccord recognize mind sports like chess, bridge, and draughts as sports. They do this not just because of bureaucratic inertia or money incentives, but because these activities are competitive, follow strict rules, and require a unique blend of skill—mental and sometimes even physical. For instance, the IOC’s inclusion of chess shows that they acknowledge the intense, albeit different, demands it places on the body and mind.
So, while chess might not have the obvious physical exertion of a soccer match, the mental endurance it demands leads to tangible physical responses. It’s not that your muscles are doing heavy lifting, but your body is still working hard under stress. In that sense, I view dismissing chess as “not a sport” just because it doesn’t involve running around misses the bigger picture.
In short, the debate isn’t just about raw physical movement—it’s about the overall competitive spirit, the physiological impact of sustained mental effort, and the fact that a lot of respected institutions now consider chess a sport. I'd say there's plenty room for argument that chess is an intellectual sport that challenges you in ways that are very real, both mentally and physically.
The study that said chess grandmasters would burn up to 6000 calories in a tournament was extremely flawed and has been debunked many times. While it does definitely require massive amounts of mental exertion, we have defined them to be different things and it doesn't fit the definition of physical exertion which is quite literally exerting your muscles. I would definitely agree that it could be put into a different category but it does not fit the definition of sport.
Look, I don't know why you're creating such a big argument over this. Chess is a sport, and you saying it isn't is not going to change a thing. It's not that deep.
Then provide some reasoning?
What do you mean? Arguing over such a petty thing is a waste of time. And if more people agree that it's a sport than you, why don't you accept it? The dictionary shouldn't be your go-to for the definition of something. You should listen to what other people have to say. Everyone except you and select few other people KNOW that chess is a sport. Your conspiracy theories are a waste of time as well. If literally EVERYONE that knows what chess is agrees that it's a sport, then you shouldn't argue because they have more experience than you.
I have cited surveys where most people thought that it was not a sport. Also, most people would use the same definition of sport that I do.
How many people have answered your survey, exactly? I doubt that the experienced chess players did, because they wouldn't waste their time over arguing whether chess is or isn't a sport, because they know it is. Where'd you get the dictionary? GOOGLE. Then go to your precious google and ask it if chess is a sport and then check "most" of the entries, as you say. And there you have your answer
Go look for yourself instead of repeatedly using ad hominem. Also, the dictionary I used was oxford's.
If you used the physical dictionary then pardon me. And also I have checked. Either you're using off-brand Google, or you're just arguing for the sake of it.
Im saying go look and check the two surveys that I sent.
Where is the survey?
Ok so for some reason one of my comments was just removed (probably because I edited it or something) but Crystal0192 responded to it. You can see an article talking about one here: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1459883/adults-recognizing-chess-as-sports-great-britain/ and the other survey here: https://www.reddit.com/r/SampleSize/comments/2dxmvj/results_is_it_a_sport/.
I don't have a Statista account and if you use Reddit then you know that you're not going to get accurate answers.
I am speaking for everyone out there that knows that chess is a sport. I'm talking about the grandmasters, international masters, even the beginners.
Some people "knowing" chess is a sport provides no real value as an argument.
I can say the same to you. If you think chess isn't a sport, it holds no real value as an argument
There's a difference between providing reasoning and just saying some people know something.
Yeah, I provided reasoning
Please, I would like to continue this in a more disciplined manner. Just asking if that is possible?
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.
Look, I get where you're coming from—dictionaries might say that a "sport" is an activity that requires physical exertion, and on the surface, chess doesn’t seem to involve running around or heavy lifting. But there’s a subtle difference between physical activity and physical exertion that’s worth considering.
Physical activity is any bodily movement produced by the muscles that results in energy expenditure. Now, physical exertion usually conjures up images of sweat, heavy breathing, and muscle strain. But consider chess: while you’re not sprinting, the intense concentration and constant mental stress during a high-stakes match trigger significant physiological responses. Studies have shown that during prolonged chess tournaments, players can burn thousands of calories—sometimes as many as 6,000 in a long game—because their heart rates soar and their bodies react to the mental strain. That’s a form of physical activity, even if it isn’t what we traditionally picture as “exercise.”
Moreover, when we talk about sports nowadays, governing bodies like the already mentioned International Olympic Committee (IOC) and organizations such as SportAccord recognize mind sports like chess, bridge, and draughts as sports. They do this not just because of bureaucratic inertia or money incentives, but because these activities are competitive, follow strict rules, and require a unique blend of skill—mental and sometimes even physical. For instance, the IOC’s inclusion of chess shows that they acknowledge the intense, albeit different, demands it places on the body and mind.
So, while chess might not have the obvious physical exertion of a soccer match, the mental endurance it demands leads to tangible physical responses. It’s not that your muscles are doing heavy lifting, but your body is still working hard under stress. In that sense, I view dismissing chess as “not a sport” just because it doesn’t involve running around misses the bigger picture.
In short, the debate isn’t just about raw physical movement—it’s about the overall competitive spirit, the physiological impact of sustained mental effort, and the fact that a lot of respected institutions now consider chess a sport. I'd say there's plenty room for argument that chess is an intellectual sport that challenges you in ways that are very real, both mentally and physically.
The study that said chess grandmasters would burn up to 6000 calories in a tournament was extremely flawed and has been debunked many times. While it does definitely require massive amounts of mental exertion, we have defined them to be different things and it doesn't fit the definition of physical exertion which is quite literally exerting your muscles. I would definitely agree that it could be put into a different category but it does not fit the definition of sport.
Look, I don't know why you're creating such a big argument over this. Chess is a sport, and you saying it isn't is not going to change a thing. It's not that deep.
Then provide some reasoning?
What do you mean? Arguing over such a petty thing is a waste of time. And if more people agree that it's a sport than you, why don't you accept it? The dictionary shouldn't be your go-to for the definition of something. You should listen to what other people have to say. Everyone except you and select few other people KNOW that chess is a sport. Your conspiracy theories are a waste of time as well. If literally EVERYONE that knows what chess is agrees that it's a sport, then you shouldn't argue because they have more experience than you.
I have cited surveys where most people thought that it was not a sport. Also, most people would use the same definition of sport that I do.
How many people have answered your survey, exactly? I doubt that the experienced chess players did, because they wouldn't waste their time over arguing whether chess is or isn't a sport, because they know it is. Where'd you get the dictionary? GOOGLE. Then go to your precious google and ask it if chess is a sport and then check "most" of the entries, as you say. And there you have your answer
Go look for yourself instead of repeatedly using ad hominem. Also, the dictionary I used was oxford's.
If you used the physical dictionary then pardon me. And also I have checked. Either you're using off-brand Google, or you're just arguing for the sake of it.
Im saying go look and check the two surveys that I sent.
Where is the survey?
Ok so for some reason one of my comments was just removed (probably because I edited it or something) but Crystal0192 responded to it. You can see an article talking about one here: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1459883/adults-recognizing-chess-as-sports-great-britain/ and the other survey here: https://www.reddit.com/r/SampleSize/comments/2dxmvj/results_is_it_a_sport/.
I don't have a Statista account and if you use Reddit then you know that you're not going to get accurate answers.
Provide some other data then. Also, while Reddit is not a perfect source, it can reflect what people think pretty well.
Thank you. I shall continue as soon as I can tomorrow
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.
Look, I get where you're coming from—dictionaries might say that a "sport" is an activity that requires physical exertion, and on the surface, chess doesn’t seem to involve running around or heavy lifting. But there’s a subtle difference between physical activity and physical exertion that’s worth considering.
Physical activity is any bodily movement produced by the muscles that results in energy expenditure. Now, physical exertion usually conjures up images of sweat, heavy breathing, and muscle strain. But consider chess: while you’re not sprinting, the intense concentration and constant mental stress during a high-stakes match trigger significant physiological responses. Studies have shown that during prolonged chess tournaments, players can burn thousands of calories—sometimes as many as 6,000 in a long game—because their heart rates soar and their bodies react to the mental strain. That’s a form of physical activity, even if it isn’t what we traditionally picture as “exercise.”
Moreover, when we talk about sports nowadays, governing bodies like the already mentioned International Olympic Committee (IOC) and organizations such as SportAccord recognize mind sports like chess, bridge, and draughts as sports. They do this not just because of bureaucratic inertia or money incentives, but because these activities are competitive, follow strict rules, and require a unique blend of skill—mental and sometimes even physical. For instance, the IOC’s inclusion of chess shows that they acknowledge the intense, albeit different, demands it places on the body and mind.
So, while chess might not have the obvious physical exertion of a soccer match, the mental endurance it demands leads to tangible physical responses. It’s not that your muscles are doing heavy lifting, but your body is still working hard under stress. In that sense, I view dismissing chess as “not a sport” just because it doesn’t involve running around misses the bigger picture.
In short, the debate isn’t just about raw physical movement—it’s about the overall competitive spirit, the physiological impact of sustained mental effort, and the fact that a lot of respected institutions now consider chess a sport. I'd say there's plenty room for argument that chess is an intellectual sport that challenges you in ways that are very real, both mentally and physically.
The study that said chess grandmasters would burn up to 6000 calories in a tournament was extremely flawed and has been debunked many times. While it does definitely require massive amounts of mental exertion, we have defined them to be different things and it doesn't fit the definition of physical exertion which is quite literally exerting your muscles. I would definitely agree that it could be put into a different category but it does not fit the definition of sport.
Look, I don't know why you're creating such a big argument over this. Chess is a sport, and you saying it isn't is not going to change a thing. It's not that deep.
Then provide some reasoning?
What do you mean? Arguing over such a petty thing is a waste of time. And if more people agree that it's a sport than you, why don't you accept it? The dictionary shouldn't be your go-to for the definition of something. You should listen to what other people have to say. Everyone except you and select few other people KNOW that chess is a sport. Your conspiracy theories are a waste of time as well. If literally EVERYONE that knows what chess is agrees that it's a sport, then you shouldn't argue because they have more experience than you.
I have cited surveys where most people thought that it was not a sport. Also, most people would use the same definition of sport that I do.
How many people have answered your survey, exactly? I doubt that the experienced chess players did, because they wouldn't waste their time over arguing whether chess is or isn't a sport, because they know it is. Where'd you get the dictionary? GOOGLE. Then go to your precious google and ask it if chess is a sport and then check "most" of the entries, as you say. And there you have your answer
Go look for yourself instead of repeatedly using ad hominem. Also, the dictionary I used was oxford's.
If you used the physical dictionary then pardon me. And also I have checked. Either you're using off-brand Google, or you're just arguing for the sake of it.
Im saying go look and check the two surveys that I sent.
Where is the survey?
Ok so for some reason one of my comments was just removed (probably because I edited it or something) but Crystal0192 responded to it. You can see an article talking about one here: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1459883/adults-recognizing-chess-as-sports-great-britain/ and the other survey here: https://www.reddit.com/r/SampleSize/comments/2dxmvj/results_is_it_a_sport/.
I don't have a Statista account and if you use Reddit then you know that you're not going to get accurate answers.
Provide some other data then. Also, while Reddit is not a perfect source, it can reflect what people think pretty well.
I'll work on a whole article for you, then. Tomorrow.
And I'm sorry if I was kinda harsh, but I've argued with people over this so many times and I just hate it when people post a forum saying a statement of theirs. The whole point of a forum is to ask people for their opinion. Again, sorry.
And I'm sorry if I was kinda harsh, but I've argued with people over this so many times and I just hate it when people post a forum saying a statement of theirs. The whole point of a forum is to ask people for their opinion. Again, sorry.
Its fine.
I just kinda hate it when I never get to complete my work when a new topic like this pops up and I want to defend people who have an opposite opinion.
We'll continue tomorrow.
bro that was so random XD
Also about the IOC, just like courts in the US don't always represent the opinion of the majority, governing bodies interpreting definitions do not have to comply with the beliefs of the majority.
This is not the same thing in any way. There is a massive difference between something like morality, public safety, and various other things compared to something that would not have large implications on society. If a crime like murder were to be legalized, it would be terrible and cause massive amounts of damage to society and the wellbeing of many people in the world. If a board game was not a sport, it would not cause damage that can be compared to what would be caused because of that. There would be little to none.
https://nextlevelchess.com/is-chess-a-sport/ You are wrong chess not being a sport would have impacts.
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.
Look, I get where you're coming from—dictionaries might say that a "sport" is an activity that requires physical exertion, and on the surface, chess doesn’t seem to involve running around or heavy lifting. But there’s a subtle difference between physical activity and physical exertion that’s worth considering.
Physical activity is any bodily movement produced by the muscles that results in energy expenditure. Now, physical exertion usually conjures up images of sweat, heavy breathing, and muscle strain. But consider chess: while you’re not sprinting, the intense concentration and constant mental stress during a high-stakes match trigger significant physiological responses. Studies have shown that during prolonged chess tournaments, players can burn thousands of calories—sometimes as many as 6,000 in a long game—because their heart rates soar and their bodies react to the mental strain. That’s a form of physical activity, even if it isn’t what we traditionally picture as “exercise.”
Moreover, when we talk about sports nowadays, governing bodies like the already mentioned International Olympic Committee (IOC) and organizations such as SportAccord recognize mind sports like chess, bridge, and draughts as sports. They do this not just because of bureaucratic inertia or money incentives, but because these activities are competitive, follow strict rules, and require a unique blend of skill—mental and sometimes even physical. For instance, the IOC’s inclusion of chess shows that they acknowledge the intense, albeit different, demands it places on the body and mind.
So, while chess might not have the obvious physical exertion of a soccer match, the mental endurance it demands leads to tangible physical responses. It’s not that your muscles are doing heavy lifting, but your body is still working hard under stress. In that sense, I view dismissing chess as “not a sport” just because it doesn’t involve running around misses the bigger picture.
In short, the debate isn’t just about raw physical movement—it’s about the overall competitive spirit, the physiological impact of sustained mental effort, and the fact that a lot of respected institutions now consider chess a sport. I'd say there's plenty room for argument that chess is an intellectual sport that challenges you in ways that are very real, both mentally and physically.
The study that said chess grandmasters would burn up to 6000 calories in a tournament was extremely flawed and has been debunked many times. While it does definitely require massive amounts of mental exertion, we have defined them to be different things and it doesn't fit the definition of physical exertion which is quite literally exerting your muscles. I would definitely agree that it could be put into a different category but it does not fit the definition of sport.
Look, I don't know why you're creating such a big argument over this. Chess is a sport, and you saying it isn't is not going to change a thing. It's not that deep.
Then provide some reasoning?
What do you mean? Arguing over such a petty thing is a waste of time. And if more people agree that it's a sport than you, why don't you accept it? The dictionary shouldn't be your go-to for the definition of something. You should listen to what other people have to say. Everyone except you and select few other people KNOW that chess is a sport. Your conspiracy theories are a waste of time as well. If literally EVERYONE that knows what chess is agrees that it's a sport, then you shouldn't argue because they have more experience than you.
I have cited surveys where most people thought that it was not a sport. Also, most people would use the same definition of sport that I do.
How many people have answered your survey, exactly? I doubt that the experienced chess players did, because they wouldn't waste their time over arguing whether chess is or isn't a sport, because they know it is. Where'd you get the dictionary? GOOGLE. Then go to your precious google and ask it if chess is a sport and then check "most" of the entries, as you say. And there you have your answer
Go look for yourself instead of repeatedly using ad hominem. Also, the dictionary I used was oxford's.
If you used the physical dictionary then pardon me. And also I have checked. Either you're using off-brand Google, or you're just arguing for the sake of it.
Im saying go look and check the two surveys that I sent.
Where is the survey?