Is chess a sport? Ending the debate

the article is not a good summary. none of the ten reasons mentioned can really differentiate chess from any other board game, aside from it's history.

being exhausted itself doesn't qualify. if so, every college student cramming for exams would be labelled athletic.

the hand-eye coordination you wrote of is laughable! your example simply doesn't compare to hitting a baseball or golf ball. or, any other sport. it reminded me of when i was a kid, trying to eat dinner quickly to go play actual sports. 

now, that's hand-eye coordination.

Here's another good summary of this crazy thread --

"I prefer to categorize chess outside of my category for "sport", but most of those arguing on my side are making ridiculous logical and rhetorical contortions for what is self evident by the nature of the definitions involved." [Post #740, @Tired of Japan]

Gives new meaning to the idea of "chasing your tail."

Chess (defined narrowly) is probably not a sport.  Yet (defined more broadly) chess is already designated a sport by many, many, countries.

Take your pick, have a stiff drink, and just "forget-about-it."

Whatever label you stick on it it is still faulty reasoning.  The number of people and organisations that believe something to be true makes no difference to whether or not it is true, regardless of their power and prestige.

QED 

And if the the incorrect percentile I was complaining about was a rounding error then it is the the biggest rounding error I have ever seen.

Here's a quote from one of your like-minded brethren --

"Making ridiculous logical and rhetorical contortions for [what is self evident by the nature of the definitions involved]."

Their ain't no such logical animal, (in the two lines of bolded text above).

You both peddle tautologies, without even knowing it.

All this silly talk (and bald assertions) about TRUTH.  Do you have no shame?

Ending the Debate? more like Continuing/promoting the debate

The OP begins with saying there is no conversation to be had.

I agree, but take exception - beyond the obvious proof of 700+ posts.

BKB has made the point already (and well so at times), that 'Sports' requires a honing of physical skill that is directly related to end results.

A gifted young student can/should learn to play a game of chess in his/her head. The manifestation of that exercise can be demonstrated OTB or electronically.

The 'physical' aspects of chess that have been described here are nothing more than any person learns to do as any given day goes by; be precise in movement and expending more or less energy to do so.

The thing that is absent is the art, the beauty the, almost subconscious growth of repetition manifesting to understanding which comes with endless repetitions of nuanced targeted practice. A sport requires (or invites) incredible subtlety such as stance, the smallest of muscle movement, understanding the dynamics of each and all variables involved, observing and understanding how every aspect; self directed movement, laws of physics, result analysis, external condition (humidity, friction) affect the given play-field.

While I understand that anyone is able to define chess as a sport; I, personally, have played sports and chess is a wonderful competition, game, pastime, diversion, test, time consumer; but not a sport.   (I'm done now; Thanks to everyone)

It really cannot be explained any better.  If anyone can't wrap their mind around the definition, I am sure it will come to them one day.

Some scientists did a test on a group of severely left-wing, well educated, liberals.  This group of adults also were highly experienced with, and natural masters of academic math when they were in college, and they were undoubtedly skilled mathematicians.  The Scientists gave them 4th-8th grade level math problems.  The problems were all "written-math word" style(1 train leaves Austin texas at 4pm going 99MPH.....).  
Without telling the subjects, all of the math problems used basic, historical, trueful facts 'based around' certain aspects of how some of the realities of Conservatism(heavy right-wing) was/is 'better than' liberalism.  Nothing biased, just factual stuff, that would make your average left winger cringe. 
The final results caught the scientists completely off guard.  They had predicted some 'difficulties', but the results were simple, and basically astonishing.  NONE of the test subjects could solve ANY of the problems.  In many instances the testees would come up with the correct answer to a problem(simple math problems), but they couldn't 'see how' the answer was 'correct'.  

One group of discussants makes breathtaking assertions about the meaning and nature of "Science and Truth."

Another group want to turn the "Chess as Sport" discussion into left-wing versus right-wing politics ??

Knock yourselves out, guys.  Such a well deserved Battle of the Titans.

If you are going to quote me then please don't change my words to make it look as if I expressed myself badly.  Please quote what I actually wrote. 

Watever you might think of what someone that you state without proof to  be my "like minded brethren" might have said,  it is irrelevant to our disagreement.

You seem to think that by using a host of philosophical terms and labels that you'll look very clever, and fool everyone that you are winning the argument.

I would guess you are doing this because you actually have no answer to the real argument about what was wrong with the article you praised.  i.e. You cannot use the fact that some people believe something as evidence that it is true.  You could easily prove otherwise by answering this point instead of your diversionary tactics.

Do you have an answer, or are you going to continue posing, waffling and making ad hominem attacks?

Nope.  You embarrass yourself, @Modest&NotPolite, with your long-winded prose and evident umbrage.  You did the job for me.

You effectively gave the answer to the (very rigid) question, that you (insist) must be imposed. You are one scary thinker.  Yikes

FYI -- posts #15, #16, and #17 contain all the factual information an intelligent reader needs to gleen from this crazy thread.  Indeed, a large number of funny posts are available starting around post #81 of this thread.  Enjoy them, please.

And with a little luck, this thread just might END.

I firmly maintain that Chess is a sport as long as curling is a sport.

Chess is a sport. Cats are cats. It's really that simple.

"Socrates is dead.  My cat is dead.  Socrates is a cat."

Lots of folks apparently missed the first "intuition."  Now corrected above.  Enjoy.

More like starting one

Having gone through these arguments as a marching band nerd, I'd say no, there's just not enough physical activity involved to meet the generally accepted meaning of the term.

And that is how 99.99% of the civilized world sees it. But since some people are always going to have their own definitions of words, the .01% who believe it's a sport aren't really hurting anything by doing so. You put it well, "generally accepted meaning". It's also generally accepted that filling out a 1040 tax form isnt a sport, but for those who believe it is, watch out. They will never get tired insisting it is.

doing my taxes qualifies as sport?!?

woohoo, i'm an athlete!

Zborg, you have my sincerest condolences on the passing of your pet cat Socrates. 

But that is an invalid logic. I mean that is not a decent hypothetical syllogism.