Asking the average person is a brilliant way to solve technical issues with the nuances of language and definitions. I recall a couple of US Supreme Court cases in the early 1920s. Both dealt with efforts to deny eligibility for citizenship to people because they were not “white” per a law passed by the first Congress limiting such eligibility to “free white persons”. That law has been superseded now, but was still the law of the land in the 1920s.
First was this guy named Ozawa. He was ethnically Japanese, but had light skin. The Supreme Court called in the scientists—anthropologists with expertise on race. He was not a Caucasian.
Second, was a fellow named Bhagat Singh Thind, whose origins were from the area anthropologists assert to be the origins of those racially Caucasian. No worries, though. The Supreme Court called on “the man on the street”. Any one could tell this dark-skilled fellow wasn’t white. No citizenship for him, either.
Is chess a sport?
Probably because there is no sports viewing audience for it. They could televise a stamp collecting competition too. But they probably wouldnt do it very often because nobody would watch it.
My apologies for the satire, which you clearly missed. It is probably too much to ask one who celebrates the technical expertise of the below average masses to know that chess has been broadcast on ESPN, and that it has appeared often in the pages of Sports Illustrated.
Maybe it's the money. These sports media giants have every reason to cast their definition of what constitutes sports as broadly as possible. Even so, I'm not sure they've covered the fourth grade spelling bee. Perhaps their definition is not so broad as to accommodate any and all amusements that might be ordered into some form of competition.
In the real world chess is considered a sport, does not matter why. Major sport organizations and many Countries consider it a sport.
In the real world chess is NOT considered a sport. .
Come on now, use your head not your emotions. Why do you need to be told everything over and over?
Optimessed, pantyman and patriot live in the world of theoretical definitions given by few sources.>>>
Hikarunaku lives in a world where the inhabitants prize incapability to argue logically and making personal attacks apparently above all else. Now, enough of the childish comments please. Accept that not everybody agrees with your opinions. Try to find out why, maybe.
AlCzervik lfPatriotGamesOptimissed,
Master of the circular argument. A perfect circle and may the circle stay unbroken.>>>
I think I'm unfollowing this conversation. My opinion of the intelligence of some of the supporters of the "chess is obviously a sport" side of the argument hasn't been very high up until now and these personal attacks pretty much rub it in. I'm starting to think that some very stupid people indeed support the "chess is a sport" side. Making all these personal attacks tends to prove my point without any real chance of refutation.
Ciao
AlCzervik lfPatriotGamesOptimissed,
Master of the circular argument. A perfect circle and may the circle stay unbroken.>>>
I think I'm unfollowing this conversation. My opinion of the intelligence of some of the supporters of the "chess is obviously a sport" side of the argument hasn't been very high up until now and these personal attacks pretty much rub it in. I'm starting to think that some very stupid people indeed support the "chess is a sport" side. Making all these personal attacks tends to prove my point without any real chance of refutation.
Ciao
Plenty of stupidity on all sides. It's a chess forum, you know.
Optimessed All the major Sports organisations and countries consider Chess to be a sport, what's there to argue. If you fail to comprehend this, we cannot help you. Don't bring the talk of money into it, otherwise these sports bodies and countries would consider any and everything to be a sport. Chess has been considered to be a sport for a very long time, I hope you and your dictionary can deal with it.
We aren't allowed to discuss religion but there's a direct comparison. It's possible to "not believe" something and yet still accept that it can be useful. So it's possible to understand that realistically, chess is not a sport, and yet understand the benefits that might accrue if it were regarded as a sport by people or organisations that can help financially. Because this is all about recognition by bodies that can help chess financially.
So it's reasonable to support the recognition of chess as a sport whilst understanding that it isn't actually a sport. There's nothing unreasonable or contradictory about that. If we have to go through channels, one such channel is the funding applied to sporting activities and therefore the formal or arbitrary recognition of chess as a sport even though it certainly isn't one.
I posted this yesterday. For Heaven's sake, read and try to understand. I know you're out of your collective depth here or else those who are doing it wouldn't be making the personal attacks. I'm no longer interested in discussing this subject with windbags who preach and don't understand anything. See you elsewhere.
We aren't allowed to discuss religion but there's a direct comparison. It's possible to "not believe" something and yet still accept that it can be useful. So it's possible to understand that realistically, chess is not a sport, and yet understand the benefits that might accrue if it were regarded as a sport by people or organisations that can help financially. Because this is all about recognition by bodies that can help chess financially.
So it's reasonable to support the recognition of chess as a sport whilst understanding that it isn't actually a sport. There's nothing unreasonable or contradictory about that. If we have to go through channels, one such channel is the funding applied to sporting activities and therefore the formal or arbitrary recognition of chess as a sport even though it certainly isn't one.
I posted this yesterday. For Heaven's sake, read and try to understand. I know you're out of your collective depth here or else those who are doing it wouldn't be making the personal attacks. I'm no longer interested in discussing this subject with windbags who preach and don't understand anything. See you elsewhere.
You cannot deal with the truth so you took the easy way out. You haven't made one logical argument to refute the long standing status of Chess as a sport.
How do you define a sport? Why do many countries consider chess to be a sport? Why do many international sports bodies consider chess to be a sport? If something is a sport in the real world according to international sports bodies and various countries, does it matter if it does not satisfy the theoretical definition of the word sport according to some sources.The flaw in the argument by people who do not consider chess to be a sport is that they completely ignore the fact that the definition of the word sport varies between sources.
I think Optimissed explained it very well. The reasons some want chess to be a sport have nothing to do with the actual definition. Think of it as a frivolous lawsuit. The lawyer doesn't really believe his client suffered any injuries, but he REALLY wants other people to believe it happened, for monetary reasons.
For some people, if chess is called a sport, it offers legitimacy that wouldn't otherwise exist. Most people know chess isn't a sport, but they have no problem calling it that if it means money, exposure, or benefits that's wouldn't otherwise exist. Why NOT call it a sport if there is some deceptive gain? Can't blame 'em.
Keep in mind these organizations aren't defining chess as a sport. Thats not their job. Their job is to promote activities that they WANT to be sports. One of those organizations said if an activity harms another creature, it isn't a sport. Well obviously that's an agenda that has nothing to do with what sports really are. They just have their own list of criteria, which is certainly their right. I own a business. If I wanted to I could define a customer as someone who spends ten thousand dollars a day at my business. 100 dollars a day would not fit my definition, so they wouldn't be customers even though obviously they are. All it means is that a goofy explanation doesn't count.
What you are searching for is a palpable explanation as to how games are defined as sports. We get it already. I will make yet another attempt to reach those of you who are not willing to accept the reasoning you have been provided with. Incidentally, I believe Hikamura has adequately pointed out the problem with why this debate continues to rage. It seems like however, your rigid thought process will prevail in light of all and any evidence notwithstanding the amount and quality of evidence, you are provided.
That being stated, I believe the argument rest on the fact that many sports have a humble enough beginning. Whereas your inclination, if I read you correctly, is if it never met specific criteria of being a sport it never will. There again that premise points out your rigidity. Take for example the Martial Arts-- noticed the capital letters for the two words respectively. One may argue that Martial Arts is not a sport because, monkeys may be responsible for its inception, or cave dwellers. Either group many may not wish to state they were capable of the abstract thinking required in the labeling of survival instinct as being a sport. But for reasons foreign to the enjoyment of Karate competitions. They are still indirectly responsible for its beginning.
I will now dispense with the enumeration of all sports that had a similar start, i.e., hunting, fishing, etc.
I will, however, state this all sports have the same distinction for the respective start. In sum, they were all games first. Then because of all the attention paid, as to qualify as a sport, it must have a viewing audience, monetary issues, and all the reasons in your circular argument, they evolved into a sport.
One more matter before you join the ranks of those members annoyed by how I sign my name at the end of this text. That is beside the point. I will sign my name when and how I please. By the way, I guess that you seem to be the best chance your group of opinionated members has of seeing the light, finally. That is why I address the pre-ceding to you, to your credit although I feel some may have a differing opinion.
Ciao,
Timothy Scott Puente
There is no truth in such a discussion .... only opinion. You must learn not to personalise arguments you may find yourself caught up in. Believing that you see the truth and anyone who disagrees with you is deluded, however well they may present their arguments, makes you look very foolish. For your own sake, stop making yourself look the way you make yourself look..
That applies to both of you.
There is no truth in such a discussion .... only opinion. You must learn not to personalise arguments you may find yourself caught up in. Believing that you see the truth and anyone who disagrees with you is deluded, however well they may present their arguments, makes you look very foolish. For your own sake, stop making yourself look the way you make yourself look..
Don't you see the hypocrisy in your statement. You pass a judgement on someone as if that's the truth, telling them what they see is not the truth.Very messed up.
And you are very stupid. Goodbye, dear heart.
Goodbye, troll. 
Optimessed, you hypocrite. The hypocrisy in your statements is alarming. You are a low intellectual troll.
This shows what happens when people like you get so wound up in their opinions and arguments that you start attacking those who think differently. You have done this. I have pointed it out. You have accused me of being "messed up" because you cannot follow my arguments, including arguments that this discussion is about opinion and not, as you fondly believe, about facts. As a rule it's best to get those you are arguing with on your side because then, they are more likely to see your point of view.
Probably because there is no sports viewing audience for it. They could televise a stamp collecting competition too. But they probably wouldnt do it very often because nobody would watch it.