chess is totally a sport If you go to a library you will see chess books under the sport section
Is this equally true with both Library of Congress and Dewey Decimal classifications? What about the systems of classification used in other countries?
It might be different now, but the last time I went to look for a chess book, it was under the games section. With backgammon, poker, checkers, etc.
chess is totally a sport If you go to a library you will see chess books under the sport section
Is this equally true with both Library of Congress and Dewey Decimal classifications? What about the systems of classification used in other countries?
It might be different now, but the last time I went to look for a chess book, it was under the games section. With backgammon, poker, checkers, etc.
Games are next to sports. Hence the confusion. In my experience, Dewey is used in most libraries, but some universities employ LC. Where I went to graduate school, older books were under Dewey and on a different floor, while recent books (past twenty years or so, and this was thirty years ago) were under LC. The university where I teach now employs Dewey.
Is poker a game of skill or a game of chance? Ask a librarian.
Dewey:
790 Sports, games & entertainment
The British Library employs Dewey for most things, if I understand correctly.
Library of Congress (under GV):
557-1198.995.........Sports
1199-1570............Games and amusements
we could always check the actual list of sports, but that would totally ruin the thread in theory, but not in practice because the chess is a game camp will ignore it.
Ziryab just did. Lets hope Hikarunaku doesn't see it. Why is chess listed under games instead of sports?
we could always check the actual list of sports, but that would totally ruin the thread in theory, but not in practice because the chess is a game camp will ignore it.
Ziryab just did. Lets hope Hikarunaku doesn't see it. Why is chess listed under games instead of sports?
It's how they are classified in a particular library.This does not mean it's true for all libraries in different locations of the world.
It's funny how you dismiss the decision of major sport bodies and think a classification in a particular library means much.
we could always check the actual list of sports, but that would totally ruin the thread in theory, but not in practice because the chess is a game camp will ignore it.
Ziryab just did. Lets hope Hikarunaku doesn't see it. Why is chess listed under games instead of sports?
It's how they are classified in a particular library.This does not mean it's true for all libraries in different locations of the world.
OK, so let me ask you this. I expect the answer to be about the same as the minimum threshold but here goes. Are there ANY libraries that have chess listed under sports rather than games?
As I said before, your sports bodies are biased. They dont define sport, they list rules to be included in their organization. If we want a sports authority, why not take the word of the world wide leader in sports? They say chess is not a sport.
we could always check the actual list of sports, but that would totally ruin the thread in theory, but not in practice because the chess is a game camp will ignore it.
Ziryab just did. Lets hope Hikarunaku doesn't see it. Why is chess listed under games instead of sports?
It's how they are classified in a particular library.This does not mean it's true for all libraries in different locations of the world.
OK, so let me ask you this. I expect the answer to be about the same as the minimum threshold but here goes. Are there ANY libraries that have chess listed under sports rather than games?
As I said before, your sports bodies are biased. They dont define sport, they list rules to be included in their organization. If we want a sports authority, why not take the word of the world wide leader in sports? They say chess is not a sport.
It's how they are classified in a particular library.This does not mean it's true for all libraries in different locations of the world.
It's funny how you dismiss the decision of major sport bodies and think a classification in a particular library means much.
Not in a particular library, but in nearly every library in the US. In my short life, I've been visiting libraries on average three times per week for barely more than half a century. But in that limited experience, the Dewey Decimal system has been the standard, except in research libraries that serve research universities. There, I have found the Library of Congress classification system to be common.
I have neither dismissed the opinions of sports bodies, not endorsed those of librarians. I am providing information with no concern for where it leads. As you like the notion of "unbiased", naive though it is, I might point out that my presentation of how these library classifications organize chess books is much closer to that phantom ideal.
You, also, seem to have missed part of what I said. I mentioned the Library of Congress and Dewey systems in response to a question that was raised, and noted that other countries may use other systems. Then, as you will note, I checked to see what classification system is used by the British Library. Turns out that esteemed institution uses Dewey.
We might also look to bookstores, which have a more varied set of systems. There, again, chess books are found to the right or left of (other) sports, not between basketball and football. Chess books will be found between books on backgammon and dominoes.
we could always check the actual list of sports, but that would totally ruin the thread in theory, but not in practice because the chess is a game camp will ignore it.
Ziryab just did. Lets hope Hikarunaku doesn't see it. Why is chess listed under games instead of sports?
It's how they are classified in a particular library.This does not mean it's true for all libraries in different locations of the world.
OK, so let me ask you this. I expect the answer to be about the same as the minimum threshold but here goes. Are there ANY libraries that have chess listed under sports rather than games?
As I said before, your sports bodies are biased. They dont define sport, they list rules to be included in their organization. If we want a sports authority, why not take the word of the world wide leader in sports? They say chess is not a sport.
Very good. But this goes back to my earlier point about how common something is. Just as you said one source said chess is a sport, dozens say it isn't. You found one library (at least I think it's a library) that has chess listed as a sport. But what about the dozens, probably thousands, that have chess in the game section, not the sport section?
Earlier you said spectators is the most important criteria for a sport, although I've never seen that listed as a top criteria anywhere else. But wouldn't you agree that's the one area chess falls far short? Except for the physical skill part obviously. Isn't spectators the one thing chess enthusiasts complain about the most, that not enough people watch it?
It's how they are classified in a particular library.This does not mean it's true for all libraries in different locations of the world.
It's funny how you dismiss the decision of major sport bodies and think a classification in a particular library means much.
Not in a particular library, but in nearly every library in the US. In my short life, I've been visiting libraries on average three times per week for barely more than half a century. But in that limited experience, the Dewey Decimal system has been the standard, except in research libraries that serve research universities. There, I have found the Library of Congress classification system to be common.
I have neither dismissed the opinions of sports bodies, not endorsed those of librarians. I am providing information with no concern for where it leads. As you like the notion of "unbiased", naive though it is, I might point out that my presentation of how these library classifications organize chess books is much closer to that phantom ideal.
You, also, seem to have missed part of what I said. I mentioned the Library of Congress and Dewey systems in response to a question that was raised, and noted that other countries may use other systems. Then, as you will note, I checked to see what classification system is used by the British Library. Turns out that esteemed institution uses Dewey.
We might also look to bookstores, which have a more varied set of systems. There, again, chess books are found to the right or left of (other) sports, not between basketball and football. Chess books will be found between books on backgammon and dominoes.
Library classification depends on the location and is not necessarily a universal criteria to categorize something.
" Chess is an affiliate member, or fully recognized by, National Olympic Committees in 117 countries, and chess as a sport is recognized in 107 countries. These numbers are constantly being revised upwards. " Source FIDE.
Very good. But this goes back to my earlier point about how common something is. Just as you said one source said chess is a sport, dozens say it isn't.
Chess is an affiliate member, or fully recognized by, National Olympic Committees in 117 countries, and chess as a sport is recognized in 107 countries. These numbers are constantly being revised upwards
It's how they are classified in a particular library.This does not mean it's true for all libraries in different locations of the world.
It's funny how you dismiss the decision of major sport bodies and think a classification in a particular library means much.
Not in a particular library, but in nearly every library in the US. In my short life, I've been visiting libraries on average three times per week for barely more than half a century. But in that limited experience, the Dewey Decimal system has been the standard, except in research libraries that serve research universities. There, I have found the Library of Congress classification system to be common.
I have neither dismissed the opinions of sports bodies, not endorsed those of librarians. I am providing information with no concern for where it leads. As you like the notion of "unbiased", naive though it is, I might point out that my presentation of how these library classifications organize chess books is much closer to that phantom ideal.
You, also, seem to have missed part of what I said. I mentioned the Library of Congress and Dewey systems in response to a question that was raised, and noted that other countries may use other systems. Then, as you will note, I checked to see what classification system is used by the British Library. Turns out that esteemed institution uses Dewey.
We might also look to bookstores, which have a more varied set of systems. There, again, chess books are found to the right or left of (other) sports, not between basketball and football. Chess books will be found between books on backgammon and dominoes.
Library classification depends on the location and is not necessarily a universal criteria to categorize something.
" Chess is an affiliate member, or fully recognized by, National Olympic Committees in 117 countries, and chess as a sport is recognized in 107 countries. These numbers are constantly being revised upwards. " Source FIDE.
Library classification might depend on location, so what do the vast majority of library locations have chess under? Sports, or games?
I dont see why the Olympics cant have chess as an activity. Why couldn't the Olympic games have a game? I dont think it's limited to sports. Also, I doubt chess is recognized as a sport in 107 countries. I think what it meant to say is the Olympic committee recognizes it as a sport in 107 countries.
Library classification depends on the location and is not necessarily a universal criteria to categorize something.
Of course. Everything I wrote about libraries was in reply to a claim.
chess is totally a sport If you go to a library you will see chess books under the sport section
Of course libraries sometimes classify books in ways that are absurdly wrong. Bookstores do too. The Education of Little Tree is a notorious example that comes readily to mind because I signed petitions that were part of an organized efforts to correct the error. The book is fiction and should be among the novels, but the publisher claimed and libraries accepted the claim that it is autobiography.
Likewise, books by David Barton belong not in the history section, but in either religion or propaganda.
Library classification depends on the location and is not necessarily a universal criteria to categorize something.
" Chess is an affiliate member, or fully recognized by, National Olympic Committees in 117 countries, and chess as a sport is recognized in 107 countries. These numbers are constantly being revised upwards. " Source FIDE.
Library classification might depend on location, so what do the vast majority of library locations have chess under? Sports, or games?
I dont see why the Olympics cant have chess as an activity. Why couldn't the Olympic games have a game? I dont think it's limited to sports. Also, I doubt chess is recognized as a sport in 107 countries. I think what it meant to say is the Olympic committee recognizes it as a sport in 107 countries.
You know that it's time to give up when you start changing a directly quoted sentence to suit your side of the debate.
Library classification depends on the location and is not necessarily a universal criteria to categorize something.
" Chess is an affiliate member, or fully recognized by, National Olympic Committees in 117 countries, and chess as a sport is recognized in 107 countries. These numbers are constantly being revised upwards. " Source FIDE.
Library classification might depend on location, so what do the vast majority of library locations have chess under? Sports, or games?
I dont see why the Olympics cant have chess as an activity. Why couldn't the Olympic games have a game? I dont think it's limited to sports. Also, I doubt chess is recognized as a sport in 107 countries. I think what it meant to say is the Olympic committee recognizes it as a sport in 107 countries.
You know that it's time to give up when you start changing a directly quoted sentence to suit your side of the debate.
I didn't change any quote. I said I think they meant the Olympic committee recognizes chess as a sport in 107 countries. Not that chess is recognized as a sport in 107 countries. How would FIDE know if chess is recognized as a sport in 107 countries? I think they are just going by what the Olympic committee says, and since that's an organization that puts on games, why not have chess? I dont know if the Olympics is limited to just sports. From the name of the competition, I would say it's not.
Besides, is the US on the list? It's certainly not recognized as a sport here, but that doesn't need to stop the Olympic committee from saying it is if they want to. What the Olympic committee thinks and what sports fans think (or the population in general) might be two entirely different things.
@jomaje Get good. Chess is a sport or not depends on various factors. The reason this topic has been debated endlessly is because there is no set standard /criteria, just opinions.So your effort towards finding errors is based on what you think is right or wrong. In this case "weighted" majority opinion is what matters. This is no law of gravity which holds true always.
Next time be more human and less of a bot, this is not the way humans debate with each other.
Hate to say it, but I have to agree with hikarunaku on that one.
Yes it excersises your brain! It is more of a sport than video games which a school around mine has for a sport!
@jomaje Get good. Chess is a sport or not depends on various factors. The reason this topic has been debated endlessly is because there is no set standard /criteria, just opinions.So your effort towards finding errors is based on what you think is right or wrong. In this case "weighted" majority opinion is what matters. This is no law of gravity which holds true always.
Next time be more human and less of a bot, this is not the way humans debate with each other.
"
"Next time be more human and less of a bot, this is not the way humans debate with each other. "
Showing clear fallacies and making reasoned argumentation based on objectivity and critical thinking standards, with enumeration of each point in order to organize the concepts and make more easily to evaluate them, is being a bot and not human? The fact is that you both that agree about that made this offense because (1) all of you cannot refute my critique pointing the fallacies (you made them, this is objective and doesn't depend on what I or you think), (2) all of you doesn't have a human moral virtue of having humility in order to accept critiques without ad hominem ("oh, you are cold, unhuman, robot") and humility to be always disposed to self-correction as the evidences are presented contrary of what you think; and (3) all of you has envy because in the present moment (in future is another matter) you all doesn't have the same critical thinking skills to evalute arguments, elaborate rational arguments and counter-arguments and identify fallacies.
The problem (3) can be resolved after a great deal of learning, study and practice of critical argumentation, along with a minimal scientific formation in order to evalute evidences.
But you will continue to make fallacies, will ignore my points, because you only want to win the debate, not resolve the issue. Proof: you think that appeal to majority is the correct critera to debate the issue if chess is sport. No, appeal to majority is a fallacy. But you doesnt´will accept this, because your are son of the relativism era of fake news, where anyone says anything, and anything is correct depending on the subjective preferences and interests, not on objective standards of logical thinking (oh, robot again, we need to think not with the cold logic, but only with guts and personal interests).
I don´t know if there is also a xenophobic trumpianism in such ad hominem offensive attack, but I will not affirm nothing in this direction because of lack of proof.
Go on, continue to make fallacies and be more human, more irrational, not a robot cold logical thinking based on evidences.
Appealing to authority/majority is not a fallacy when opinions is what we have. The definition of the word sport itself varies between sources .We are having a discussion to arrive at a conclusion. Not everyone agrees to the same definition. Our opinions are based on authorities which are the sources of these definitions. So you saying that appealing to authority is a fallacy is like saying citing a research paper is wrong. The problem with your approach is not that you are being objective, it is that you lack complete knowledge of the discussion and are too quick to judge based on incomplete information. This shows immaturity and impatience.
It's too funny that you come acting like a scholar and start finding fallacies but lack the self awareness to be patient enough to acquire complete information before jumping to conclusions.
Blah, blah, blah. If EVER I needed proof that the average chess player is a nerd who thinks chess is a sport, I could not possibly do better than quoting you. I dont need your input on how to talk or communicate or disagree with someone. This is a topic on whether or not chess is a sport, not how to debate. At least Hikaru and Ziryab for the most part ask good questions, and for the most part answer good questions. You are just incredibly annoying and contribute nothing.
But wait... by that definition stuff like backgammon, checker, domino and scrabble must be considered sport also? But those are game surely?! And what about the phrase Olympic Games? Not sport but games?
There is a thin line distinguishing something from being a leisure activity or a sport.Most important criteria is the spectators/fans.This is generally derived from the popularity of the activity. The games you mentioned do not make the cut according to major sports bodies. Chess and some other sports which are not predominantly physical are included given their rich history and popularity.
As Optimissed pointed out, TV quiz shows are sports now? Certainly FAR more popular and more spectators than chess. How many people watched the recent Jeopardy winner vs. how many people watched the US national chess championship? Or even world championship. It's probably not a good idea to bring up spectators as a requirement for sport. Watching chess is like watching paint dry, which is why so few people watch it.
There is a minimum threshold to be met for one criteria. Popularity is just one among many criteria for something to be a sport.
OK, what's the minimum threshold? You said the "most important criteria is the spectators/fans" If the most important criteria has the least amount going for it, isn't that a pretty big problem?