Is chess a sport? Ending the debate

Thank you.  You have tremendous stamina for the fight. Perhaps you could direct it to a worthier cause...

Oh, no, I am correct.  Chess can't be defined as a sport...

The question you need to answer Ziggy is: "why do I need chess to be a sport"...

So you are the Master of The Universe - The Absolute Arbiter of Word Definitions !

The question is a fair one. It is different from your tyrannical insistence that your definition is set in tablets of stone to bash everyone else's over the head with. For me chess is a sport because as I age, but nevertheless play long games, I observe there is a physical element of my being affecting my ability to think. I get tired after a couple of hours and my "brain muscle" refuses to calculate down long lines it have done earlier in the game or when I was younger.

Brain muscle?

Ziggy,

 Why do you 'need' chess to be a sport?  Why is it important to you that chess can be defined as a sport?

I have edited it by italicising and putting in quotes. Hopefully your sensibilities are not so offended  now...

I don't need to be a sport. It's you who needs 'chess not to be a sport' !

I'm happy that you are happy with whatever definition you attribute to sport. I'm content that you don't regard chess as a sport. You don't want to let others define words that have a certain elasticity according to how they want to ! You are a word tyrant!

I don't give a fig if people want to define chess as a sport or not. However I won't be told how to define 'sport' according to you. The fact that I include 'chess' as a 'sport' is a separate thing. The real issue is your absolutist position on word definition that reminds me of religious fundamentalists.

(Incidentally your idea of what is meant by  'Ending the Debate' is becoming more and more untenable )

It seems to me your issue isn't with BigKing, but rather it's with those unreasonable and fundamentalist people over at Merriam Webster, Oxford, dictionary.com etc. Apparently they are not as open minded and adventurous as you when it comes to defining words. I think it's time you go over BigKings head. Go to his boss, the people telling HIM what definitions go to which words. That'll show him.

Something of a Strawman actually, because you presume the Dictionary 'Chiefs' go along with BigKings definitions. They don't. They take the 'many mansions'  position. Here is one https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/sport

That's beside the point...

Your sarcasm is very good BTW - (for an American  )

  Well, that is good, cause if chess is a sport, then so is checkers...

 Draughts may be a sport but not checkers

(BTW A slight apology to your good self. I now realise it wasn't you who initiated this 'Ending The Debate' thread.)

I give you lot sport when I get a grip 

Ziggy,

  So you believe checkers(or "draughts" in Europe)to be a sport?  How so?

I don't believe it is or is not. I was making the 'to-mate-toe' / 'tom-art-toe' point again ... I have little opinion on it.

Chess can't be defined as a sport...

I know that you can read, So, I am gonna guess that you are dealing with being a touch emotional about the fact...

Nothing spoils the old logic maker like heavy emotions...

 Chess can't be define as a sport ? It can, and is by many people !

I'm not emotional at all about it. Makes no difference to me whether people define chess as a sport or not. What does concern me is your belief everyone should accept your ruling on the matter. Your jokey avatar may betray more than just humour.

Your argument has fallen all to pieces.  If your only argument is that I(me BigKingBud), that I make up definitions, and that I have made up my own definition of the English definition of the noun form of the word "sport",

   Then, in this case, your argument is holding absolutely zero weight in this WELL established and thoroughly flexed thread.

Chess can't be defined as a sport, and if all you have to say(Ziggy) is that I am guilty of "...making up definitions...", you can take your simple mess of an interpretation on this fact, and your crowded troll of foolishness, and you can hightail it somewhere else, 

Am I perfectly clear, buddy? 

You've constructed arguments that misrepresent my position (known as 'straw men') you hope you can knock down.

I am not saying you are making up definitions - which you are free to do by the way. I believe your definition is popular and may even be more widespread than mine. I can only address you and not every person who holds your definition. I REPEAT, I'm not contesting your 'right' to hold your particular definition, I'm contesting your stance that no other definition is permissible.

Looks like you've lost the argument and are beginning to employ a little emotionalism into the thread Bud? You said previously 'why do I need chess to be a sport?' I don't as I previously said. Your insinuation was I needed chess as a sport for some psychological reason. I suggest you are the one with this fixation. More so so since you have appeared like an evangelist on practically every page of this thread.

Founded in Paris on 20 July 1924, the World Chess Federation (Federation Internationale des Echecs, known as FIDE from its French acronym) was recognized by the International Olympic Committee as an International Sports Federation in 1999.

Prior to the founding of FIDE, Chess had existed as a sport played at competitive level for centuries. In its over 2000 years history from its origins in India and outlying countries in Asia, the game had undergone a series of changes and metamorphosed into its present day form by the 15th century. In those days, there was no common code governing the Laws of Chess or uniform regulations for International Competitions. The only binding force was that it was a gentleman's sport in which the players were expected to act with decorum plus the enduring beauty of the game to its practitioners.

https://www.fide.com/fide/fide-world-chess-federation.html