I'm not. I'm pointing out that although chess is a game and not a sport, leaving it to a judge to decide on it wouldn't seem to be such a good idea if the judge didn't have the ability to see when s/he was being silly.
Is chess a sport?
Sort:
alright this forum sux unfollowing
Jun 27, 2019
0
#104
EpicPlayer11 wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
EpicPlayer11 wrote:
no I was given a warning about something before
LET not young souls be smothered out before
They do quaint deeds and fully flaunt their pride.
It is the world’s one crime its babes grow dull,
Its poor are ox-like, limp and leaden-eyed.
Not that they starve, but starve so dreamlessly,
Not that they sow, but that they seldom reap,
Not that they serve, but have no gods to serve,
Not that they die, but that they die like sheep.
Vachel Lindsey, "The Leaden-Eyed"
wtf does that have to do with anything?
It has to do with everything. Lindsey was a freaking genius. Only he and Herman Melville clearly saw our predicament today.
Ironic doesn't like to say it. Ziryab's poem is simply bewailing the fact that so many people seem so incapable of thinking for themselves, that it seems surprising that they are actually alive.
<<Lindsey was a freaking genius.> He was somewhat bright?
Jun 27, 2019
0
#107
Optimissed wrote:
Ironic doesn't like to say it. Ziryab's poem is simply bewailing the fact that so many people seem so incapable of thinking for themselves, that it seems surprising that they are actually alive.
Lol
Jun 27, 2019
0
#108
It can be useful to consider the time and place of composition whilst reading a poem.
Jun 27, 2019
0
#109
Who really cares? Most of the issues pertain to subjective matters. Forgetting all about objectivity.
Just don't try to use the dictionary or the Court to make your point. You will be tied up in arbitration from now until doomsday. The high court has priors; they once heard arguments about the meaning of the word may.
...and get this many people here have a problem with...
Ciao, p.s.
and...
Timothy Scott Puente
Optimissed wrote:
<<I've also noticed not one single person has addressed my point. What would a judge or jury say? What could be proven in court? Do you HONESTLY believe a judge would for two seconds buy the argument that chess is an actual sport? Of course you dont. Nobody else does either>>
That doesn't seem quite such a good argument nowadays, since we now have judges who uphold the "right" of one gender to be considered to be the other.
I guess I dont think of it as an argument. It's more of a question I got my jury duty letter two weeks ago. I'm curious what WOULD a judge or jury think or say? What is the likely outcome of someone actually had a jury decide if chess is a sport?
You bring up a great point about what judges consider gender, so I suppose it's possible if a judge considers a man a woman, he might also consider chess a sport. But still, I wonder what a jury would say.
At least there is discussion about why some people believe chess is a sport. I think it has to do with people wanting to feel accepted but you could be right, it could be simply a matter of money or sponsorship. Even with stretching the limits of imagination, and pretending chess is a sport, I still dont see very much money or sponsorship given to chess no matter what happens. The fact there is so little money in chess just might be the ultimate proof it was never a sport. People like to watch sports, they dont like to watch games. Maybe they should somehow put chess on a game show if money is the motive.
Chess is nothing more than a made up board game that hasn't evolved in 100's a years.
(Altho' that doesn't explain why AK would sweat off over 10 pounds a game against GK.)
Jun 27, 2019
0
#112
All the facts and information cannot change the minds of people too naive to comprehend them.
Ziryab wrote:
It can be useful to consider the time and place of composition whilst reading a poem.
"I don't do back stories" as the actress said to the bishop. Only ...
lfPatriotGames wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
<<I've also noticed not one single person has addressed my point. What would a judge or jury say? What could be proven in court? Do you HONESTLY believe a judge would for two seconds buy the argument that chess is an actual sport? Of course you dont. Nobody else does either>>
That doesn't seem quite such a good argument nowadays, since we now have judges who uphold the "right" of one gender to be considered to be the other.
I guess I dont think of it as an argument. It's more of a question I got my jury duty letter two weeks ago. I'm curious what WOULD a judge or jury think or say? What is the likely outcome of someone actually had a jury decide if chess is a sport?
You bring up a great point about what judges consider gender, so I suppose it's possible if a judge considers a man a woman, he might also consider chess a sport. But still, I wonder what a jury would say.
At least there is discussion about why some people believe chess is a sport. I think it has to do with people wanting to feel accepted but you could be right, it could be simply a matter of money or sponsorship. Even with stretching the limits of imagination, and pretending chess is a sport, I still dont see very much money or sponsorship given to chess no matter what happens. The fact there is so little money in chess just might be the ultimate proof it was never a sport. People like to watch sports, they dont like to watch games. Maybe they should somehow put chess on a game show if money is the motive.>>
I'm absolutely certain that you are right in that there are those who wish to consider it a sport from the pov of personal kudos either from others or in their own minds and so the situation is muddied by differing perspectives. But the idea that chess is a sport must have come from somewhere and it isn't an idea that one would expect an educated person to hold, because, quite simply, chess is indeed a board game that has been exalted above most other board games. The only place I can really see that idea coming from is from those for whom it's a sort of political discussion to do with money and funding. Otherwise, I really don't think the idea would have gained any traction whatever. Don't you think so too?
I don't like it. Is that wrong of me? I was married to someone and I accused her of feeding me with catfood. She got very angry. Was that very wrong of me?
Optimissed wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
<<I've also noticed not one single person has addressed my point. What would a judge or jury say? What could be proven in court? Do you HONESTLY believe a judge would for two seconds buy the argument that chess is an actual sport? Of course you dont. Nobody else does either>>
That doesn't seem quite such a good argument nowadays, since we now have judges who uphold the "right" of one gender to be considered to be the other.
I guess I dont think of it as an argument. It's more of a question I got my jury duty letter two weeks ago. I'm curious what WOULD a judge or jury think or say? What is the likely outcome of someone actually had a jury decide if chess is a sport?
You bring up a great point about what judges consider gender, so I suppose it's possible if a judge considers a man a woman, he might also consider chess a sport. But still, I wonder what a jury would say.
At least there is discussion about why some people believe chess is a sport. I think it has to do with people wanting to feel accepted but you could be right, it could be simply a matter of money or sponsorship. Even with stretching the limits of imagination, and pretending chess is a sport, I still dont see very much money or sponsorship given to chess no matter what happens. The fact there is so little money in chess just might be the ultimate proof it was never a sport. People like to watch sports, they dont like to watch games. Maybe they should somehow put chess on a game show if money is the motive.>>
I'm absolutely certain that you are right in that there are those who wish to consider it a sport from the pov of personal kudos either from others or in their own minds and so the situation is muddied by differing perspectives. But the idea that chess is a sport must have come from somewhere and it isn't an idea that one would expect an educated person to hold, because, quite simply, chess is indeed a board game that has been exalted above most other board games. The only place I can really see that idea coming from is from those for whom it's a sort of political discussion to do with money and funding. Otherwise, I really don't think the idea would have gained any traction whatever. Don't you think so too?
I honestly dont know. The only reason I starting watching this topic is because I was curious why some people would think chess is a sport. I know some of the responses and reasons are just trolling. They dont actually believe chess is a sport, they just want a reaction out of someone.
I guess I thought the main reason was because they wanted to feel accepted or a part of something more important than "just a board game". Until you mentioned money, and things like politics and sponsorships, I did not consider that because there is so little money in chess. But maybe by trying to call it a sport, that's an attempt to get more money, sponsorship, or attention.
In the end I believe that people will just observe the obvious. Chess is a board game, which is why it's not a spectator event, which is why there is so little money. Trying to call it a sport isn't going to fool very many people into thinking money and attention should be spent on it.
But maybe by trying to call it a sport, that's an attempt to get more money, sponsorship, or attention.>>
I pretty much totally agree. By the way, stamp collecting's a sport isn't it? I think we could claim our human rights, get stamp collecting recognised as a sport and then governments will put more money into that sport.
Stamp collecting as a spectator sport??
Optimissed wrote:
But maybe by trying to call it a sport, that's an attempt to get more money, sponsorship, or attention.>>
I pretty much totally agree. By the way, stamp collecting's a sport isn't it? I think we could claim our human rights, get stamp collecting recognised as a sport and then governments will put more money into that sport.
Stamp collecting as a spectator sport??
Well using the same reasons as the chess is a sport people, yes. Stamp collecting would be a sport, because it takes effort to raise a persons hand and put the stamp where it belongs. Just as it takes effort to raise a persons hand and put a chess piece where it belongs. Obviously the physical skill part makes no difference to the people who think chess is a sport, so it's not going to make any difference that no physical skill is needed for stamp collecting either. Now that you mention it, there are probably a lot of similarities between the two. Stamp collecting is probably more of a physical activity because it requires actually placing a stamp somewhere, but chess can be done totally blindfolded with no piece movement. Someone else posted a photo of the world champion playing a game totally motionless.
I've always thought chess was more like sudoku or crossword puzzles. It's ultimately a puzzle, that someone else is trying to stop you from solving. But I suppose they believe crossword puzzles are sports too.
Me?