Is chess a sport?

I believe you're going to get this thread locked if you carry on the way you are going. To avoid this I really am not going to answer you any more. I'm going to block you.

Again a hypocritical statement was made. It's better not to accuse someone of doing something when you are doing the same. 

Regardless of this argument, No one has provided a good argument for why chess is not a sport. You said because of money which I clearly explained why that cannot be the case. If you have any refutation for that statement, then go ahead. 

Timothy

I dont know if the origins of a sport have anything to do with it. I've never considered that. But the activities you mentioned are all sports, not because of their origin, but because they fit the definition. Martial arts, hunting, fishing are all sports because they require physical skill. Not exhaustion or effort like some insist, but skill or expertise. Chess requires no physical expertise, except forms of speed chess where physically moving the pieces very fast determines the winner. Also, I never said if it's not a sport it never will be. I said the opposite, I said right NOW chess is not a sport. If the definition of chess or the definition of sport changes to include things that dont require physical skill, like crossword puzzles and chess, then I would accept they are sports. The meanings of words change over time, and someday sports might include things like spelling bees, SAT tests, and speed reading. But right now, it's generally accepted (in the actual real world) that those things, including chess, are not sports.

We don't agree on chess as a sport, but we are in agreement here. Opinions are all that are being expressed here and there is no reason for personal attacks.

Your best post so far. I disagree, of course. But you are making a reasonable argument for your position.

How can you do that? Surely the more people you collect who argue for chess being a sport and fail to give any reason other than "some people including some sporting bodies consider chess a sport" are only weakening your case, no matter how many people agree with that sentiment. Seriously, you can show that many people think chess is a sport and you've managed to do that. But I thought that the object should be to put forward convincing arguments that will convince people like me and Patriotgames that chess is literally a sport instead of metaphorically a sport.

The reason I'm not going to answer at least one person here is that he claims to have put forward logically convincing arguments for the proposition that chess is a sport and that I've ignored his arguments. I didn't see such an argument from anyone here and I don't think one was made. He also believes that it is a fact that chess is a sport and the idea that it isn't is incorrect opinion. He therefore doesn't even understand the ideal nature of facts. Taking into consideration the personal comments too, there are people here who are trolls and who support your proposition. That weakens it.

Whoops.

I agree with much of this. I dont know if money is the reason, but maybe it is. ESPN probably doesn't televise 4th grade spelling bees for the same reason they dont televise 99.99% of chess tournaments. I've never heard of, or seen, a chess event on ESPN but I'll take your word for it that it's happened. But I have to wonder, which is televised more on ESPN, chess tournaments, or political commentary. I would bet political commentary. Would that then make ESPN primarily a political talk show station? Same with sports illustrated. I'll bet there have been more pages covering political issues than chess.

At least now I can see why there might be a reason for some to call chess a sport. Since there is money involved, that could provide incentive. That gives me an idea.

Sports Illustrated does more for women's swimsuit fashion than they do for chess. That doesn't make it a fashion magazine. The appeal of their annual swimsuit issue stems from their target market: men.

They cover the occasional chess event (and some of Garry Kasparov's political rants) because either the editors recognize that chess somehow fits vaguely within the wider world of sports, or perhaps because they recognize that some of their readership thinks so.

To be honest, the last chess event I watched on ESPN was more that fifteen years ago--Kramnik vs. Fritz. But, that's also the last time ESPN was part of my cable subscription. When I watch ESPN at all, I'm either in an establishment that has televisions, such as a bar, or I've gone somewhere for the explicit purpose of watching WSU football, the Seattle Seahawks, or Gonzaga basketball.

No. It’s a food that you can eat.  

i'd rather read kasparov on politics than anyone on chess.

We isolated two reasons that people wish that chess should be considered to be a sport. One, which I think is by far the most important, is the potential financial incentive, since governments allot money to sports quite a bit. Then, there's the feeling of legitimacy ... that chess is transformed from some kind of nerdish obsession to full legitimacy in the eyes of the masses. That must feel better to the bespectacled, mousey types who stayed in at dinnertimes to play chess at the school chess club, whilst the ones that always seemed to get the girls were playing football or, in England, maybe cricket.

The magical reification that has enabled a transformation of the wish that chess should be thought of as a sport to chess literally being a sport is something else. That only happens in peoples' minds, however many chess enthusiasts reify it into reality. I would not consider watching chess on TV unless Bobby Fischer were reincarnated and could be seen directing imaginary thoughtwaves and custard pies at Korchnoi, between the moves. But I know that some people would like to watch chess on TV and that's fair enough.

Maybe take a look at Edward Winter on Kasparov and his politics, as cropped up in my reading last night. This from Chess Explorations (1996), 222-223:

Kasparov's technique is to attack so hard that defence will not be necessary. Whether through foolishness or naivety, he seems unaware that his harangues about the need for truth and sincerity in the chess world will cut little ice so long as he attacks unscrupulously and undiscerningly (the old "Campomanes' gold mine in South Africa" accusation, now refuted, has been quietly buried without an apology) and as long as he continues his political and literary associations with individuals (one individual in particular) whose untruths can be, and have been, repeatedly proven as a matter of public record.


The "individual in particular" is Raymond Keene, of course.

I'm not sure that it's still true. Likely not. The quote is from a piece written while Kasparov was still world champion. If I remember correctly, Keene had a hand in the organization of the PCA and of the WCC with Kramnik.

Kasparov's style--calling for truth, while being somewhat reckless in his own facts, however, does not seem to me something that he has fully grown past.

Asking whether chess is a sport is like asking whether popcorn is a vegetable or which came first, the chicken or the egg?  There will never be a consensus!

Kasparov always reminded me of the Indian guru and fakir, Satya Sai Baba of Puttaparti. Not that I have anything against either of them. I think Kasparov was a great player, but actually very lucky in his match with Short, who cracked up after posing Kasparov a series of difficult questions.