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

Indeed. We’ve discussed this extensively in another thread on the topic.

I don't consider chess a sport. It's absolutely, 100% a board game.

But that doesn't diminish it in any way. An activity doesn't need to be a "sport" for it to be valued.

I believe the whole emphasis and the push from chess enthusiasts (and from chess organizations) to stuff chess into the "sports" category comes from the recognition that the general public greatly admires athletics and athletes. That's where the spectacle is - and where the money is.

Chess organizations of course want in ... to elevate the game in the eyes of the general public into something of greater value and greater fanfare. And understandably so. Chess is an incredible game - it (and its player base) deserves more recognition.

But I'm pedantic, so I can't call chess a sport when it already exists as a very specific other thing ...

I respectfully disagree. After some careful consideration, I realized that chess is a spectator event that has energy-drink sponsors. Therefore, it is in fact a sport in the only real sense that matters, and that is because of hydration.

the main argument that chess isnt a sport is people scratching their head and expecting sports to require exercise.

take that aside and chess has everything a sport has.

1. national and international governing bodies

2. a code of professional ethic practices involving play

3. an informal code of sportsmanship

4. high level of competition

5. captive audience.

trying to find the "necessary and sufficient conditions" of what makes a sport a sport is mostly a waste of time . The best you can do is apply family resemblance. And chess has almost all the features one expects from a sport except sweat.

the problem is when things like funding and media attention are decided in such a way that they pretend they want a "right" answer to avoid accusations of being arbitrary. This politic of professions is rampant. Whether pluto is a planet or not, whether obesity is disease or not, whether chess is a sport, are pragmatic questions disguised as ontological ones but based on what we fit in what box can be the difference between getting research funding or not, or permission to be in the Olympics.

Hey @darkunorthodox88 wanna eventually play a couple rapid games i don't have a good gauge on my style yet and have been wanting to see other people's opinions

Well stated and I mostly agree.

You don't. It's a game of pure skill--no cards or dice are involved.

how do you even know that they are necessary and sufficient conditions to a social construct like a sport? the entire purpose of finding necessary and sufficient conditions is to discover the nature of natural kinds. Sports arent a natural kind.

they are plenty of sports not represented in the olympics. That doesnt make them any less a sport.

At first, I thought it wasn't a sport, but according to Google, it is a sport and the IOC considers it as a sport.

chess is to sport as kaitlyn Jenner is to woman. Ben feingold is in top athletic form and kaitlyn is a smoking hot babe and I’m a totally straight athlete which is neat

this is so asinine idk where to begin. we dont use the olympics to define sports, we use a pre-conception of sports to guide the events to create including olympics. Being part of the olympics is not a necessary condition to be a sport and given some of the controversial categories, may not even be sufficient.

Two dudes playing chess naked together is the purest form of sport

two kids mud wrestling in an after school fight does not a sport make. A couple pretend fighting during foreplay is not a sport. two people playing monopoly probably isnt a sport. two kittens pawing each other isnt a sport. 
This definition is pure garbage. Hell even trying to use the olympics as a litmus test is a better definition.

I agree with this, but I can totally see your viewpoint if you do consider chess a sport and that is very valid as well.

Sorry but the topic is clearly about a calling to "How I defend the argument that chess is a sport".Curioselly,the thread atract to detractors.Is ok.I can also read the other side of the coin.But be conscient that is just the opposite purpose...On my mind appear lots of examples to compare...just one can be the fans of Ronaldo going to the doors of headquarter of Messi to express their preferences...Is ok but also is the reason why you can get hardly polemic.One solution can be to create a topic ACME trademark for the contrary argument. BEEP ! BEEP !💨 💨

This thread is vastly more interesting with a handful of posters who generally support the idea that chess is sport arguing. It grows dull when someone with a truncated dictionary flies in and quotes a definition that falls short of recognizing usage.

Of course, we should never consider playing chess a substitute for exercise. Athletic sports serve a vital purpose. Fifty years ago, most children played outside and trips to McDonalds were special treats. Now, McDonalds is standard “food” and most children are idle. The negative impact on long-term health is a cultural crisis.

If calling chess a sport worsens this problem, it should be avoided.

OTOH, the sporting aspects of chess are undeniable. On Saturday, as TD at a youth tournament, I was enforcing rules while a young girl cried because she thought her opponent was required to call check. He captured her king. We backed up the game and she moved her king out of check. She still lost, but the crying stopped. The next round, I shared her joy when she won a game.

Deny expertise because those who devote their lives to a topic have a vested interest and are biased.

Nonsense.

Imao, if you ever find a person who challenges that chess is not a sport it's a reacrational activity unlike most other "physical sports", politely answer -

If you are a follower of the old ways .... remember that those people also banned clothes during maches to allow fair play. Not to mention women can't participate.(It think it was the ancient olympics in rome)