Ziggy, If you are 12 years old, or younger(or a very young adult) we'll give you a pass, it is totally fine to need some time to grow up.
If you are an adult, you really look bad here.
Is chess a sport? Ending the debate
Sort:
The only way I look bad is if you are trolling, in which case I salute you for your stamina. Unfortunately I now suspect I'm dealing with someone with a mental illness.
Ziggy you bring no facts(proof), and you just talk about stuff that isn't factual...
What have I said that isn't factual?
BigKingBud wrote:
Here I am on page 3 of this forum, stating the obvious, and here you are(today), a new comer to this forum, and you Ziggy are a childish troll at best...
We've spent around 2 years studying the facts, coming to conclusions and in the end helping people like you understand the truth on the subject. You are by far the most childish naysayer yet to be made an example of...
And I thought I was persistent...
That's the thing, you haven't brought any proof, you just run your mouth, and state opinions...
You brought the FIDE being recognized as a sports "federation", and still, do you think we do not know how to google the basics?
About the only thing you have said is, dictionaries aren't correct... and then ZERO proof to support this claim...
The IOC (International Olympic Committee), has recognized five sports of the mind. Chess is one of those five. end of debate?
BigKingBud wrote:
That's the thing, you haven't brought any proof, you just run your mouth, and state opinions...
You brought the FIDE being recognized as a sports "federation", and still, do you think we do not know how to google the basics?
About the only thing you have said is, dictionaries aren't correct... and then ZERO proof to support this claim...
I called you a blockhead. Now I realise I owe genuine blockheads an apology...
Chess doesn't meet the characteristics to be defined as a sport...
If you think it does or can be, you are incorrect.
If you actually want to bring some proof and argue, this thread has covered all avenues(especially those resulting from simple and quick Google searches) and it has covered them thoroughly...
There isn't much we can do to help those who refuse to think... Except to nicely ask you to leave...
Apr 3, 2018
0
#1131
BigKingBud wrote:
Chess doesn't meet the characteristics to be defined as a sport...
why?
Have to laugh at this idea that the brain is not a physical object.
Apr 3, 2018
0
#1133
Richardinho wrote:
Have to laugh at this idea that the brain is not a physical object.
finally someone !!!
Apr 3, 2018
0
#1134
A Sport is a competitive game wherein the outcome of the game is decided by the physical abilities of the participants. Examples, golf bowling, and curling.
Ekrabin wrote:
A Sport is a competitive game wherein the outcome of the game is decided by the physical abilities of the participants. Examples, golf bowling, and curling.
How about a fistfight between Carlsen and Caruana
Apr 3, 2018
0
#1136
Categorization depends on individual processing models. While a holistic processing model may be quick to conclude that chess is not a sport because it doesn't seem to "fit in" with other sports, that have been traditionally physical, an analytical processing model would question whether physicality is a confound or an integral definition of what a sport actually is. As it turns out, analytical processing models have been scientifically shown to be more accurate. As such, one cannot simply discredit chess as not a sport without affirming, with confidence, the details of what a sport actually is. For example, is it the degree of physicality that makes something a sport? The muscle fibers may not be altogether active in chess, but what about the muscle nerves? Surely, they are active. Is it a ratio of muscle fibers to muscle nerves that determines a sport? Is it the element of teamwork that distinguishes sport from nonsport? Are less physical activities, like pool, also sports? These questions must be clearly answered to evaluate whether or not chess is indeed a sport or not.
IfPatrioticGames wrote:
If someone asks you a question, and you reply "no", is it ok with you if they have their own definition of what no means? For example, a stranger asks if he can have your car (not borrow it, but have it) and you reply "no". Everyone has their own definitions right? Maybe for him no is a word used by people who are always joking, it really means affirmative or accepting. Like you said, "nobody is right and nobody is wrong" so you cannot hold it against him if he takes your car after you said no. You consented to it.
It's probably a good idea to use words according to how they are defined. People who believe chess is a sport are probably just allergic to dictionaries.
Actually, I was talking about this ONE case. My words don't apply to any situation what so ever, so stop trying to find cases that don't even APPLY to my words.
VictorOchoa wrote:
Categorization depends on individual processing models. While a holistic processing model may be quick to conclude that chess is not a sport because it doesn't seem to "fit in" with other sports, that have been traditionally physical, an analytical processing model would question whether physicality is a confound or an integral definition of what a sport actually is. As it turns out, analytical processing models have been scientifically shown to be more accurate. As such, one cannot simply discredit chess as not a sport without affirming, with confidence, the details of what a sport actually is. For example, is it the degree of physicality that makes something a sport? The muscle fibers may not be altogether active in chess, but what about the muscle nerves? Surely, they are active. Is it a ratio of muscle fibers to muscle nerves that determines a sport? Is it the element of teamwork that distinguishes sport from nonsport? Are less physical activities, like pool, also sports? These questions must be clearly answered to evaluate whether or not chess is indeed a sport or not.
I'm afraid that is way over the head of the resident blockhead. He's probably out on the porch playing his banjo at the moment. I'll spare him the trouble by answering in the way he would:
You strangers come here with your fancy words. That means nothing. I bring facts. Those that oppose me like that Limey varmint Ziggy only bring opinions. Round here in these parts we use the King James Pre Scopes Monkey trial dictionary. if it ain't in there we don't see it...
So high tail it out here you rootin-tootin coastal intellectual so we can edukate folk round these parts...
Here I am on page 3 of this forum, stating the obvious, and here you are(today), a new comer to this forum, and you Ziggy are a childish troll at best...
We've spent around 2 years studying the facts, coming to conclusions and in the end helping people like you understand the truth on the subject. You are by far the most childish naysayer yet to be made an example of...
Spending years on a thread 'educating people' on your viewpoint? You're a big fat headed joke.