IS CHESS A SPORT?????????

MAYBE.....

Chess is neither game nor sport. Chess is. 

why did this forum get so popular??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

believe it or not this position is winning with white to move

1. Rh5 Qxh5 2. Ra6+ Kc5 3. Ra5+ Kb6 Rxh5. another variation: 1.Rh5 Qf1 2. Ra6+ Qxa6 3. Rh6+ Ke5 Rxa6 is again winning for white.

All sports are games. But not all games are sports. Amusement, structured play, past time, recreation, etc are what define game. But for a game to make it to the next level and qualify as a sport, it needs that one critical requirement that games do not require. Physical skill. 

Chess does not meet that threshold. 

Game = Play

Sport = Competition

Practicing a sport = Practice

Except some of the people here who say chess is a sport already agreed competition is not required for something to be a sport. There are non competitive sports, like tennis or golf where there is no score. 

Practicing a sport is practice of course. But, it's also still a sport. There is no other name for it. Two people playing tennis for fun maybe aren't practicing at all, nor is there another name for that activity.  Maybe they are not trying to get better. Nor are they keeping score or competing in any way. They are just enjoying the sport of tennis for it's own sake. 

If we were to walk by a tennis court where two people are playing and observed them abiding by all the rules, (except score keeping) what reason would we have to not call that the sport of tennis? Who would call it practice? I'll bet nobody because we would have no way of knowing if they are competing or just having fun.

Well, sports don't need competitivity to be sports, however, if a game has no competition whatsoever, it can't be a sport. Chess is one because it has competitions, even though a casual chess game can still be called a sport.

As far as the competitive nature of chess, and potentially sport, I agree. They both potentially share that quality. They also share things like organizations that run events, they also share qualities like they are for recreation. They certainly do have some similarities.

But, a casual game of chess cannot be called a sport for the reasons that have yet to be reconciled. Where is the physical skill in a casual game of chess? A game can elevate itself to sport through competition, yes. But it also has to meet the threshold of physical skill. In a casual game of chess, there is none. Literally, zero. 

I think even those who argue that chess is a "sport" can also agree with the most basic definition of chess: it's a board game.

Chess is not a pasta. It's not a shoe. It's a board, with plastic/metal/wooden pieces atop it, and instructions that explain the rules of the game, which is designed to be played with two players.

Both players follow the rules of game in how they move the game pieces. And the game ends when one of the game-ending conditions are met.

It seems (to me) that people only start arguing that it's a "sport" when the topic of professional competition is added to the equation. The arguments point toward the difficulties involved in top-level play.

But if that's the case, wouldn't adding the element of professional competition elevate any board game into the realm of a "sport"?

And is that fair to do so, when there are other activities that more naturally fit the definition of what a "sport" classically is?

Should we then allow other activities to slip into the "board game" category by, say, adding a board to the activity, by a similar logic?

If we take a hot-dog eating contest, for example, and have the participants compete while setting their food on a shared wooden board, can we then declare competitive hot-dog eating as a "board game", too?

At what point do we say, "Hey now, that's not what that actually is ..."?

Apply your logic to the “OlympIc Games.”  “Games,” in this context, is an umbrella under which all individual sports are played. 

Yes. All sports are games. But not all games are sports. So to call the Olympics games is 100% correct. They could even include board games if they want, since they too are games. Think of it like a square. All squares are rectangles. But not all rectangles are squares. For a rectangle to be elevated to a square it has to meet a higher threshold. It has extra requirements. 

Some games are elevated to sports, if they have that physical skill element to them. But many games do not reach the level of sports. Things like tic tac toe, chess, or most card games. I can think of one card game that could be a sport though. Slapjack. Remember that game where you take turns putting down cards, and as soon as a jack appears the first person that slaps it keeps the pile. That's a game, card game even, where physical skill is likely to determine the winner. 

Games are defined at their core by the term, “play.”

Sports are defined at their core by the term, “competition.” 

These are my personal opinions, and therefore are not subject to your limited interpretation. 

Training for a game or sport is not performing the sport itself. Practice is not a sport. Practice can be anything that improves a particular skill, but it is not the sport. Tennis is a sport when played under competitive rules. Hitting a ball back an forth across the net can be practicing for tennis, but it also could be two kids who know nothing of tennis volleying the ball back and forth. They are not playing tennis, could texhnically be practicing for tennis, but at the core, they are just playing their own made up game. 

You are right, your opinion isn't subject to my interpretation. But if we left definition of words up to each person, then it would be pretty hard to communicate. Imagine court proceedings where each party gets to decide what words mean. 

Games ARE at their core defined as play. Which is why all sports are games. But sports are not defined at their core as competition. The core definition, literally definition, is physical skill. That's actually how the dictionary (and almost all of society) defines sports. Even the dictionary says sports "often" have a competitive nature. It doesn't say always. Non competitive tennis for example. Many people play for fun, not competition. 

Sports are usually competitive, I agree. But they don't have to be. But they do always have to have physical skill. So far nobody has come up with any exceptions. Nobody has named a sport that has no physical skill. I think the reason for this is because once that requirement is taken away, then it's no longer what is a sport, it's what ISN'T a sport. 

Yes chess is in fact a sport, and it was recognized as one by the International Olympic Committee. While this acknowledgement falls shy of recognition as an "Olympic Sport" which would merit inclusion in the Games, it is an acknowledgement of the sport-like properties inherent in chess.

If you would like more there is a link to an article that was made by this website.

https://www.chess.com/article/view/is-chess-a-sport#:~:text=Chess%20is%20recognized%20as%20a,like%20properties%20inherent%20in%20chess.

no

I think we all agree that chess does share a few properties with sports. Things like training, competition, organizations governing play, etc. And I don't see any problem with including chess in the Olympic games. It is, afterall, a game. But an olympic committee doesn't decide what is a sport and what isn't. It can have an opinion of course, but that opinion is likely to be biased. Given the corruption and biases of the past, it would make sense to take what an olympic committee says with a grain of salt. If we are looking for definitions, it makes more sense I think to look to non biased sources. Would you ask a defense attorney to decide if his client is innocent? No. We would ask a judge or jury. While they might have some bias, it would be FAR less than the obvious bias of the defense attorney. 

It's not very credible to say it's "fact" when quoting a biased source.