How do I defend the arguement that chess is a sport?

But you have to admit sports are a lot more popular and profitable than board games. So those are two prime suspects. It's not likely some people feel chess is a sport just for the fun of it. People are motivated by things that they feel benefit them. It seems MUCH more likely that the "chess is a sport" people hope to gain something tangible rather than doing it for non tangible reasons.

I am a chess coach for children because I am not motivated by hope of financial gain. There are far easier ways to make money.

Your (and @AtPatriotGames) share an extremely limited understanding of human motivation. I’m willing to accept your confession that financial gain (or loss) is the sum of the motivation that has guided your life’s choices. Your projection of this world onto to others is pure nonsense.

Of course, some people hold the view that chess is a sport because it helps advance some goals, whether financial or otherwise.

As a chess coach, I may find some benefits if my students perform well. Those benefits are mostly the satisfaction of seeing those whom I care about do well. Promoting chess as a sport is not the most efficient or effective way to develop the talent of young players. Like the hope of illusory financial gain, this is a poor motivation for positions that I have taken in these discussions.

I just did one of my stunts where I lost a lot of rating points in a few games. I made a real mess of this one, playing really badly and dropping two pawns, not really watching what I was doing. I decided to try to focus and win it from two pawns down on the theory that I was probably by far the better player. 5 minute game. Making this the last game whatever the result.

I know that Ziryab is a chess coach for young people and that therefore he stands to gain financially by quite a lot, the more chess is recognised as a sport. That is so obvious that it's no wonder he tries to protect himself. It's only a discussion, however. This is a Chess forum and people should be able to put forward their honest opinion, without being attacked because of it. This is not Russia or North Korea.

If it's officially recognised by the olympic committe as a sport then it's a sport. You don't need to defend your argument as it's already set in stone.

What makes you believe the Olympic committee defines what sports are? What about poetry and architecture? Are they sports?

It seems much more likely that your limited understanding of human motivation is flawed.

People who seek financial gain from arguments on social media are fools.

The IOC's Executive Board proposes which sports will be included, and the rest of the IOC members then vote on it. The IOC evaluates sports based on 35 criteria across 5 factors, including the sport's value to the Olympic legacy, popularity, and cost of broadcasting

And chess is not an Olympic game. It's not included. My question might have been phrased poorly. What makes him believe the IOC is any authority on sports? If they have a bias or financial gain wouldn't we automatically disqualify their opinion? When defining things wouldn't it make more sense to go with a definition that's not tainted or biased? Poetry and architecture were at one time Olympic events. Does that mean they are (were) sports?

As someone else said, when a bank robber says the money in the bank belongs to them, do you believe them? Or is their opinion tainted and biased?

That's why the dictionary is one of the best sources for definitions. It's generally not biased. Definitions can change of course, but people who compile dictionaries don't do that. Society does that. And right now society says chess doesn't fit the criteria for sports.

I think that he's denied the incentive of financial gain about four times and it isn't in my nature to disbelieve people. Even so, incentive can be unconscious and generalised rather than being specifically for money. I don't think there would be an incentive to deny it, if he was the innocent party. I just can't understand why someone would make personal attacks as a first line of defence. If he doesn't like me, that's his prerogative; but personal attacks are still something that are going to be reacted to. There's too much attempted bullying around here.

If i had a Country then its government wouldn’t recognize chess as a sport

If i had a Country then its government wouldn’t recognize chess as a sport

chess is no sport because there is no athletic movements at all