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

No, you don't. There is no requirement to be in any sort of physical shape to play chess. Chess may be played without even moving the pieces. You don't even need a board. Chess is a purely mental pursuit. The pieces, board, clock, etc. are tangible items to make the game easier to see and follow along. But they are not REQUIRED.

Sports require physical skill and exertion. Chess does not. Just because some people get stressed playing chess does not mean it's required. The only thing REQUIRED to play chess is a means of relaying your intended move to your opponent. That's it. You don't even have to make the moves yourself. You can have someone else do it. Try doing that with sports.

By our logic soccer is just a game all you have to do is kick a ball around you won't even have to run so it isn't super exhausting at all unless you want it to be

It can be not a sport and a sport so yes and no it depends how you play it it isn't like everyone playing chess is competing in a sport but everyone competing in otb tournaments is

I have a question for you marching band is not a sport but it requires physical ability and to perform why is that exactly ? Hmmm

Oxford English Dictionary definitions of sport

https://www.oed.com/dictionary/sport_n1?tl=true

It is tho your just to basix(get it?) to understand

In my opinion, competitive marching band is a sport. Because it requires physical skill and exertion. Just like some forms of dancing, swimming, etc.

I completely agree that at one time chess could have been considered a sport. When a sport was a pastime, or enjoyed for merriment. But over time, definitions of words can change. They are not written in stone, rigid, and inflexible. Language is flexible, it can change over time.

If someone a couple hundred years ago said chess is a sport, and provided a dictionary definition, it would be hard to say otherwise. But that was then. This is now. Currently, under the modern definition of sport, chess is excluded because presently the definition of sports emphasizes the physical skill and ability and exertion. Chess requires none of that. Sports do.

OED does not find this usage archaic.

Of course, the most common definition emphasizes physical skill and exertion as you have been repeating ad nauseam. Nonetheless, you are correct that language is flexible. The less common definition remains in use. Chess fits fully within this definition.

Moreover, aspects of sport most often include organized competition and training. Here, chess shines.

There are good reasons to recognize and develop the sporting aspects of chess, and yes, to consider the game as a sport.

However, the frequent argument in these threads about energy use and stamina in chess competition only play into your argument. That argument for chess as sport fails.

My argument these past 6-7 years in multiple threads has always emphasized the competitive aspects, the flexibility of language, and the full lexicon as preferable to the abridged dictionaries. Chess is correctly recognized as sport in the oldest and still employed definitions of the word. It is also fully recognizable in emerging definitions of sport that emphasize the competitive aspects of sport. Being a good sport matters.

These things seem to militate against the idea of chess being a sport, since many of these descriptions (they can't be called definitions for obvious reasons ... they're all different) are diversionary in nature and consist of light-hearted merry-making and killing the occasional wild boar or stag. Chess is a more serious endeavour, generally. So probably none of the old descriptions are really apt and chess is highly competitive in nature, yet involves no physical activity.

There are those who claim that chess demands physical fitness but they're weakening their own argumens by making an argument which is as bad as that is.

Chess isn't a sport, stop talking nonsense.

On Thursday last it was my 73rd birthday and it was chess club night. There had been emails to the effect that there was going to be a 15 minute rapidplay Swiss organised. That irritated me as I was generally feeling tired and not feeling like playing in a competition. Nevertheless, I felt it was my duty to play and I got 5/5 with two whites, one of which was wasted on the weakest player I played. Of the rest, three were around 1900 FIDE and one of those has just won a big slowplay Major tournament, a few weeks back.

My mindset was quite interesting. After the debacle of the first game against the weaker player, which I could have lost because I allowed myself to go so far behind on time, I determined to play safely in the rest and play maneouvring games. I had to forsake that resolution in the very next round, since my opponent had allowed a pawn advance in the centre which won a piece for two pawns and even though I wasn't properly developed, I had to play it and so that was tactical too.

In the rest of the games I played very calmy and quite quickly. I was exactly in the mindset which led me to win so many tournaments in the early 1990s. Maybe 20, actually, plus many other prizes. I wasn't aware of any sporting element. A couple of my opponents became noticeably on edge. I would say, they were the last two rounds. One of them upset the pieces but it wasn't his fault because it was one of those sticky roll-up plastic boards, so I broke the rules and stopped the clock, helping him to set up the position. I could have insisted that he let his clock run and won on time. I suppose that was sporting of me.

I think, overall, that the air of calmness which I felt and the measured responses involved in chess are so far from the norm of physical sporting acrivities that at no point did I feel flustered, in a hurry or anything like that. It was good to relive my exact mindset when I won so many tournaments back then. In chess, we respond to the moves made by others but really we are always playing against ourselves, to some extent. It's a game of constant judgement.

I would say that chess is no more a sporting activity than cooking a really complex and good meal, perfectly. Exactly the same mindset is required.

Playing chess burns my calories and trace elements.

So does staying alive, you wazzock.

It is not a sport because it is considered an art

Like how drawing isn't a sport

I have no doubt dancing, swimming, ice skating, etc could be considered aretistic. But they are also sports. Is competitive marching band artistic? I don't see how it matters what the artistic content or level of something is.

The definition of sport does not mention art, that I'm aware of. So I don't see how artistic value could be used for or against something being a sport. If it were, think of all the people who think chess is art. Are you saying because chess is art that it cannot be a sport?

I think sometimes the best persuaders of chess not being a sport are the people who claim chess is a sport.

Marching band is sort of in its own league it is about to different to be a sport at least according to some people

But to similar and competitive like a sport

It really depends how you do it

Not all people who run participate in a sport but people who do stuff like track racing do participate in sports

It is the same thing with chess you can play it like a game and like a sport

I agree. For instance speed chess, where physical speed and dexterity are very important, could be considered a sport. But the traditional game of chess, where there is no need for any physical participation, cannot be a sport.

Well that's why there's the world chess championship it just depends how you do it wether or not chess is a sport

What makes you think chess requires physical ability to win? Because thats what a sport is. You're not exactly using the English language right if you don't follow definitions. Words are just names for things and to classify things. Really all there is to it is it's definition when you just wanna call something something. That's just my take though.