Is chess a sport? Ending the debate

Astute observations by BigKingBud 

Is there a ball? Then no.

Excuse me, but this is entirely wrong. Electricity is physical movement. Computers use this to move. It may not be "obvious" movement, but it is movement nonetheless. This same electricity is what allows humans, and all lifeforms for that matter, to move. No offense, but please read my other post; you may be using holistic categorization.

You need physical movement of the human skeletal system for a sport...

'The game' of chess is not played with the physical body,

Chess is like math(also not a sport), you can't 'solve' chess with your physical body,

You can't teach your fingers, hand, arm and upper body how to play 'the game' of chess.

You didn't listen to a single word I typed, did you?

 chess is no more a sport(by standard definition) than "deciding what you are gonna eat for dinner" is...

Well, I mean chess has "the competitive" side of the definition in droves, but not the physical part...

Your logic is ridiculous...

Have to laugh at the folk who refuse to accept that the brain is a physical object. 

What logic? That chess is a sport? If you would have read anything that I typed, you would see that I never argued for chess being a sport. These kinds of false assumptions are what one becomes prone to when one follow holistic categorization, as explained in the post that you did not choose to read.

Victor, It's a VERY basic definition.

The "physical movement" required for an activity to qualify as a sport are of the physical human body.  Like when you throw a dart.  You have to use your arm, your bicep(and MANY muscles), your elbow, your wrist, your fingers...
When you play chess, "the game" part is only calculated in the mind.

Your brain would have to come out of your head and 'physically' grab and throw a dart in order for your brain to be involved with "the physical processes" that qualify darts as a sport...

you are making an assumption that anyone can define anything in whatever way they choose. 

I thought the goal was to end the debate. It looks like it continues despite the needs of the few....

No. I am making a statement that some, many or even most things can be.

The definition of sport is pretty simple to understand(though, it can be a little tricky).  If you want to make up your own definitions(Ziggy) that is fine.

I am not making up definitions...  I am simply 100% sure of the facts here, if that makes me seem like a jerk, you are misreading me...

I understand that some(newcomers) keep coming to this thread having trouble 'grasping' the definition of sport.  So, I am thorough, and I see no reason to let misunderstanding be...

But with prideful confusion, nonsense and 'pretend time', I am gonna send it running for the hills...
And, IMO Ziggy is nothing more than an empty troll, I also do not think he truly understands what that means either, and hasn't the slightest clue that he is trolling me.

No dude, you are the troll here. You don't listen to anything that anybody says and continuously repeat yourself, despite whether or not what you say is relevant to what is being discussed. We don't want to make you feel bad or insult you, but it's difficult to avoid this if you take corrections personally when these corrections are supported by most every physics and psychology books being used at universities.

I have read what you and Ziggy have said, NONE of it affects the definition of sport...

Chess is not a sport, it can't be a sport, if you think it can, you need to think again...

Did you read the part where I never argued whether or not chess is actually a sport?

Please listen; I'm not trying to insult you or anything. All I'm saying is, what I think we all want is a good, honest debate. But if you do not, however, respond to what people are stating, then debates cannot occur, which may cause some frustration in others. Maybe I went somewhat overboard in response to your comments. I probably will not respond to this thread again. But please take it to heart: I'm not "out to get you." I just prefer to have clean, good discussions. It becomes much more difficult to listen to another person when that other person does not listen to what you have to say; this may triggers animalistic instincts in humans that can cloud rationality.

if we are to assume that bud is a word tyrant, words are elastic, and that there are no absolute definitions of words, there is no way to communicate. 

and, it does not compare to religious fundamentalists, who interpret the meaning of phrases.

Yes, I even googled the terms and stuff that you are talking about... "holistic categorization"

If you "aren't arguing whether chess is a sport or not", you may be in the wrong thread...

The word 'sport' has a wide base of definitions. Not all words in language cover so many nuances. To say that I believe all words have an inherent subjectivity is to misrepresent my position. Misrepresentation is Bud's job, not yours...

Different people do have different understandings of words. The 'trunk' of a car in American English is a the 'boot' in British English for example. This no doubt may have caused misunderstanding in the past, even leading to humorous situations. With 'sport' rather than two separate cultural group having different meaning we have two philosophies. For the umpteenth time, 'sport' is one of those words capable of a wide group of meanings. Bud is a liar if he says that dictionaries don't include cerebral competition as a sport.