Is chess a sport?
Sort:
I agree it’s *YES*
Jul 2, 2019
0
#162
AlCzervik wrote:
TimothyScottPuente wrote:
Spelling bees, SAT test writing resumes, etc. as a sport is nonsense. Chess is a sport. Keep it real. You are drifting away from reality to prove your point in vain.
The question remains, is chess a sport. It has been answered. Yes, chess is a sport.
I am tempted to submit this entire thread to the Olympic Committee.
Ciao
i hope they put it alongside the discussions about breakdancing and rhythmic gymnastics being "sports".
as far as your demeaning "keep it real" comment, it is more than fair to ask if those other activities are sporting to the dunderheads that think chess is sport.
"dunderheads"! You are so kind, dear Al.
Read https://londonchessconference.com/a-question-of-sport/
Weigh and consider. There are some credible points there.
The best line: "snooker = chess with balls"
"Ten Reasons why Chess is a Sport"
Ziryab, there aren't ten reasons why chess is a sport. I'm struggling to find one but an article that claims there are ten isn't credible and isn't worth reading.
1/ Competitive. The objective of a game of chess is to win. Chess involves a relentless struggle against one’s opponent. There is probably no sporting activity in which two people are locked in a competitive struggle of such intensity for such a sustained period of time. One lapse of concentration and suddenly a good position is transformed into a losing one. Each game is a drama in which the outcome is uncertain until the very end. When recently interviewed by journalist Dominic Lawson, the world chess champion Magnus Carlsen said that chess was “definitely a sport”.>>
<<There is probably no sporting activity in which two people are locked in a competitive struggle of such intensity for such a sustained period of time>>
OK so I decided to take a look. Let's examine the first point. Apart from the intended argument being totally incorrect, since there are plenty of competitive situations that can last longer and are more intense than chess, the entire sense of the argument is lost since they tell us that "there is probably no sporting activity in which two people are locked in a competitive struggle of such intensity for such a sustained period of time". Therefore, the correct, logical sense of that is that chess is NOT a sport. They're telling us that it isn't. I am not about to take lessons from someone who is such a fool that the intended argument is actually contrary to its meaning.
Next, the fool tells us that "each game is a drama". Not my words but the fool's. They are using "drama" as a metaphor there but since they are obviously oblivious to the fact that when people refer to chess as a sport they are using metaphor, and since we don't want to apply double standards, we must go along with their way of thinking and therefore note that they are now referring to chess as a drama. So, according to them, it's no longer sport. It's drama. And then just to keep the issue entirely clear and focussed, they switch track within the SAME point to bring in an argument from authority from someone called Magnus Carlsen, which no intelligent person is ever going to believe is unrelated to self-interest.
So they can't even keep to their own arguments and that's definitely a sign of weakness, as well as a sign of the fact that they just want to con you. If that was point one, I'm sorry but I won't consider the rest. They just disqualified themselves from ever being taken seriously. Maybe someone here who fancies themselves as a logician can have a go at putting forward an argument for chess being a sport, because these people really are not very intelligent. I'll be the judge because I'm the one with the philosophy degree, which is a qualification of sorts. 
Philosophy? Do you compete with other philosophers for business or for fun? Is there any sort of organization that philosophers might belong to? What was the other criteria, oh I think it was rules. Are there any rules that philosophers go by?
Jul 2, 2019
0
#166
Thee_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
....ur in denial. Seek attn immed.
No sport can be played without the tools of. Chess can be (and is !) played w/out a so much as the board. Itsa board game Homer....u doh !!
I am not sure if you understand that if two people play in the absence of the board and pieces and the moves are verbalized, the reference to the board and pieces when verbalized make the board and the pieces requisite.
AS for the rest of you that persist in your argument that not enough physical exertion makes chess exempt from being a sport. It does not exempt: 1. Hunting 2.Fishing 3. Car Racing
Au revoir et a bientot
lfPatriotGames wrote:
Philosophy? Do you compete with other philosophers for business or for fun? Is there any sort of organization that philosophers might belong to? What was the other criteria, oh I think it was rules. Are there any rules that philosophers go by?>>
Honest Native Amercan, I haven't a clue. I dropped out of university first time round, I decided to go back 20 years later to get a computing degree but I was too busy. I worked out that whereas a computing degree was work intensive and would take 65 hours a week, which I didn't have since I more or less worked full time, ran the local chess club and took my little boy to school and picked him up again, nevertheless I could do a philosophy degree in 18 hours per week. I managed it but had to spend another year doing the dissertation to get the honours part. So I ended up getting a completely useless philosophy degree EXCEPT I realised that it had disciplined my mind. I find you very attractive because I like sporty women. Also, you have a good mind. Today I bought some marmalade because we'd run out.
What was that .... oh, rules? You mean like in a competition, so it can be a sport. Yes, ok, there are rules. One is that you always try to address the argument rather than trying to work out WHY a philosopher says such and such. The trouble is, that's the rules that ACADEMIC philosophers play by because in academia they try to support one-another's careers. I'm not in academia so I can say that some philosophers just talk for the sake of talking. Also, most of them did their most noted or "best" work before they matured intellectually. Basically, you can ignore them. I do.
Yes, they are in the minds of the opinion-holders, that's true enough.
Jul 2, 2019
0
#169
Not only is chess a sport - the International Olympic Committee recognized chess as a sport in 1999 - but asking on these forums if chess is a sport is a sport. The same question with the same varied opinions appears again and again with very little intellectual energy being put into the answers - like so few posing a serious definition of sport and so many ridiculously claiming chess is not physically challenging. Play in an all-day, regular rating, Swiss Tournament and if you're not exhausted physically and mentally at the end of the day you are very unusual.
iluvzmetuna wrote:
if you play football in your backyard with your dog, would you call it a sport ?
but if Brazil play Holland at international level, you might call that a sport.
same with plonk little things like chess, but some people here think if you are bouncing around like Mike Tyson it can’t be a sport, someone says it is considered by some as a mind sport, yet there is a chesscom crowd that only have time for athletics sports and will take chess is not a sport to the grave with them because stubbornness matters so much.>>>
You could try to think of it more like a difference of opinion and less as stubbornness. I suspect it's the ones that think it's a sport who are preaching.
MickinMD wrote:
Not only is chess a sport - the International Olympic Committee recognized chess as a sport in 1999 - but asking on these forums if chess is a sport is a sport. The same question with the same varied opinions appears again and again with very little intellectual energy being put into the answers - like so few posing a serious definition of sport and so many ridiculously claiming chess is not physically challenging. Play in an all-day, regular rating, Swiss Tournament and if you're not exhausted physically and mentally at the end of the day you are very unusual.>>
Yes I do get what you're saying. I did compete in very many swiss events to the extent that it was a regular source of income and very often I was shattered by the time I was halfway through the fifth game on the third day. And that, in fact, is part of the point. If you're physically fit, physical exercise doesn't take that much out of you. Normally, you will get a second wind and often finish the day stronger than when you started it. But thinking, stuck in a chair all day, is difficult. Thinking, sat in a chair, isn't my idea of sport. There are some very fat people who probably think of themselves as normal. They aren't my idea of normal, either, but maybe they're happy enough in their own minds. Until they die prematurely.
CHESS. IS. A. SPORT.
Ziryab wrote:
AlCzervik wrote:
TimothyScottPuente wrote:
Spelling bees, SAT test writing resumes, etc. as a sport is nonsense. Chess is a sport. Keep it real. You are drifting away from reality to prove your point in vain.
The question remains, is chess a sport. It has been answered. Yes, chess is a sport.
I am tempted to submit this entire thread to the Olympic Committee.
Ciao
i hope they put it alongside the discussions about breakdancing and rhythmic gymnastics being "sports".
as far as your demeaning "keep it real" comment, it is more than fair to ask if those other activities are sporting to the dunderheads that think chess is sport.
"dunderheads"! You are so kind, dear Al.
Read https://londonchessconference.com/a-question-of-sport/
Weigh and consider. There are some credible points there.
The best line: "snooker = chess with balls"
of the ten "points", the only one close to a credible point (as you put it is #3-physical fitness. that paragraph talks of players intensely focusing for seven hours and how world champs have fitness coaches. just because .0001% of players include fitness with study and play of chess it does not automatically make chess a sport.
some of the other points are laughable. olympics? re-read above in red. "global game". really? well, so is checkers, and probably risk and monopoly. "national accolade". spelling bee champs receive national recognition, too.
delaying alzheimers? so do crossword puzzles.
Eevees4life wrote:
CHESS. IS. A. SPORT.
In all sports there are competition and every competition there were a prized or staked to compete with,,, so therefore chess is absolutely a sports !!!
Eevees4life wrote:
Eevees4life wrote:
CHESS. IS. A. SPORT.
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.
Jul 2, 2019
0
#178
iluvzmetuna wrote:
can a fart be wind ?
Eat enough cauliflower and you'll know.
Optimissed wrote:
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.
That is probably the most sensible thing anyone has said here. There must be a reason people want chess to be a sport, even though it isn't one. People will say or do all kinds of things that they know aren't true, if there is a purpose or benefit that they think makes it worth it.