(for athletes) Have you encountered individuals adamant about chess as sport?

Your argument is in the form:

premise: "I learned it in school."

conclusion: "It's Western."

If you are going to make the sort of claims that you do, about being so logic and fact driven, and only wanting to be shown if you may be wrong, then you are going to have to do better than that.

But in perspective (not to say in fact), it's called "Middle Eastern" in the West for a reason. It's from a middle ground. And then, it predates the concept of West and East anyway.

Alright, so do you accept Zang Fei? I believe that's pretty much his deal.

No. Was that a criteria? I missed it previously. Anyway. You were looking for Chinese superhuman fighters. There are others too in that story. Personally, they seem to me to qualify. Up to you whether they meet what you are looking for.

OK. This is even why I left out for example Zhuge Liang (more of a strategist). Guan Yu was more in the middle amongst these guys. Zhang Fei was more of the personal fighter type--described as being "like a tiger among men"--but whether that's "super strength" is up to you to decide if it qualifies.

There are some others I can think of, but they may be gods, so I don't know if you would count them.

It's a pretty long story. I would say yes, he is portrayed with super human strength. For sure it's not about his superior mental state. He's actually a bit of a drunk. But he's not a demi-god (as is Hercules), and he's not empowered directly by God Almighty (as is Samson), and he's not an alien with powers from the yellow sun (as is Superman). I think he qualifies, but it somewhat depends why you are asking or what you are looking for.

Well...there's a story of him standing alone on one end of a bridge, daring the army of Cao Cao to advance and attack him, and they were afraid. Again, up to you whether that counts. What exactly was your point in asking in the first place?

As I noted previously, Hercules is a demigod (son of Zeus). Samson is the direct servant of God. Superman is from another planet. Zang Fei is human. But you also mentioned Arnold Schwarzenegger--he'd at least be in that category.

There are lots of exaggerations of physical strength. Mostly from people who think chess is a sport.

Not sure which Napoleonic battle you are referring to. Berzinga? Arcole? Something else? Regardless, that was clearly not an act of personal strength or even bravery, but generalship. The Zang Fei example, on the other hand, is a one-up "come fight me" from a man to a horde, and the horde withdrew. I suppose you could read the story. It's pretty good.

I believe he meets the criteria you stated. What's it got to do anyway with whether chess is a "sport" (reasonable to say so) or indeed "athletics" (not so reasonable)?

You'd have to read it. They were afraid of him, not his traps or few retainers.

Anyway, if you don't like that one, and you don't want the Monkey King, there is pretty much Nezha. He's a demigod though, but so is Hercules. He fought the dragon king, for example.

I'm a bit unclear what you are looking for here. Have you got some thesis that "there is no such legend in Chinese?" Is that important in some way? I mean, I'm not even Chinese. I just know what I've picked up.

His basis may be originally Indian, but he's certainly a figure of Chinese myth. It's all one world, Grasshopper.

Then also, you could go with (last one) the Ten Brothers story. Which has ten brothers, and each has a power, and one is super-strength.

It's more than somewhat unclear what you are looking for here. These legends clearly do exist and meet any reasonable interpretation of the standard you have put forward.

Alright, so you do at least have an underlying thesis: For the Chinese it's always guile.

They do appear to favor that approach. Zang Fei, though a creature of strength, is a drunkard. Lu Bu, who I mostly left out, is untrustworthy (but certainly wins by physical prowess). Guan Yu, I mentioned is "in between" but he's probably more of a strategist than a fighter and Zhuge Liang is certainly a strategist. Nezha is a Chinese legend, and was probably more about strength than guile. The Ten Brothers cover all the ground between them. Monkey King, OK, he's a monkey (actually I believe he came to life out of stone or something), but they do admire him.

It's easier to make a case if you say "primarily" or "mainly" instead of "always" or "only."

BTW, I left out Japan and Sumo (which oddly is a sport I watch). I am going to dinner!

CHESS IS A SPORT

Which kind of sport? When you say something is a sport, you can always classify it. Like running is a track and field sport. Racing a car is a motorsport. BMX is a cycling sport. etc, etc. There are about 2 dozen categories of sports. Which one does chess fall under?

Nota Sport?

I know I said I was leaving, but then my own topic was up TOP 😆
1: Chess is NOT a sport. If you can fully perform the activity while taking a shit, it’s not a sport (but don’t; that’s gross.) You don’t need to be Socrates or Lao Tzu to solve that riddle.
2: Chess is NOT a martial art. If you think it is, challenge match a martial artist. You can open with e4 and they’ll counter with the chess clock to your temple. (But please invite me, bc that sounds awful - but I’ll admit it - hilarious 🙏 I’ll even bring popcorn to share.)
3: You can try to pass off the faux philosophical as a depth of wisdom until it faceplants into common sense (and ethnocentrism only accelerates that process.)
4: I was foolish to think my original question would ever elicit mature and generative conversation. But I certainly never expected it to draw out absolute. fucking. nutballs.

Whether a conversation is mature and generative isn't based on whether you agree on the direction of it. Your question was provocative anyway.

The question of whether chess is a sport is philosophical or linguistic. It depends what you mean by "sport." It has no impact on the thing itself. Though chess is fairly clearly not "athletic."

Yeah, that match made a mess of Karpov. But stress, and even energy usage, are not the usual definers of "athletics." Rather, activities involving running, jumping, and throwing. Pretty much what the Greeks had in the Olympics or what Americans call Track and Field.

Even here, it's a philosophical and/or linguistic argument. It depends what the meaning of "is" is (to paraphrase Bill Clinton). If you buy the Socratic line, then words have some perfect and precise meaning, and you can try to eventually get at those. But if you don't buy that line (and it is wrong, I think), then words only go as far as they go...if you don't mean the same thing by a word as someone else, you can't take a discussion past a certain point. There is no right and wrong in the question "is chess a sport?" It depends what you mean by sport.

Up to you. By the definition I stated, it can easily be a "sport" without being "athletics," though it does require strength, coordination, and stamina. Hunting with birds of prey would have been considered among the very finest sports in ye olden times--much more so than field games would have been counted.

Up to you. By the definition I stated, it can easily be a "sport" without being "athletics," though it does require strength, coordination, and stamina. Hunting with birds of prey would have been considered among the very finest sports in ye olden times--much more so than field games would have been counted.