😤
Is chess a sport? Ending the debate
Sort:
AntonioEsfandiari wrote:
@BKB You can do all the chess in your head all you want, but if you can't move the pieces to the right squares with proper motor function, then what good is it? This is the same even for online chess, if you are constantly mis-clicking it will kill you.... The chess in your mind is no different than the calculating you do in every other sport.
The reason you are upset BKB is because your argument is actually that "most of the effort involved in successful chess is executed in the mind." I can't argue with you there, clearly that is where 99% of the effort is, but this doesn't take away from the technicality that chess is still classified as a sport. The only physical requirement for chess to be classified as a sport is for it to require SOME amount of physical effort, and it clearly does.
P.S. Your brain is the most important part of success in any sport anyway. We can also debate on this.
I agree with your passion, and I understand your frustration that chess is recognized as a sport. When we think of sports we may think of high heart-rate, sweating, physical exhaustion. But in a tricky way, just like a criminal lawyer getting his guilty client set free because of a loophole, chess is TECHNICALLY a sport.
I'm trying to understand your point of view. I think we all agree that the game of chess is played in a persons mind. But are you saying that a person must be able to move the pieces in order to play chess? Are you saying there must be a physical skill requirement to play chess?
In your opinion did Stephen Hawking ever play chess? What about grandmasters who call out names of moves without ever touching or seeing a chess board? Is that not a game a chess? The definition of chess says that it's a board game, but is it required that a board be involved? For example, online chess is on a screen. No physical board. Or correspondence chess, where moves were mailed back and forth for many months.
I think it's the fact that chess is a mental game is why there are so many variations of how it's played. There not as many variations in something like baseball. The game of chess can be played outside, sitting down, between two players, with no board, no pieces, and no clock. The players may simply call out the moves. But I dont think baseball can be played outside without a field, balls, or bats. Because the physical skill part is missing, players and umpires calling out plays wouldnt work. Otherwise every player would just say they hit a home run.
To those who avoid the semantic route by saying, "there's more than 1 definition of a game, it's how you define it, so it's all relative". Semantic arguments are important because you need words to have definite meaning. Is a pizza a table? It is if you decide to stretch the definition of table to include a pizza, but we don't because we already have a common sense idea of what a table is, although not a strict and official one.
Did the person who invented the first iteration of the board game which became chess think "I'm going to invent a new sport today." Probably not.
Chess was played in the royal courts in Europe for centuries (with many notable and strong female players, as an unrelated factoid). Did they think they were playing a sport? Probably not. The idea of it being a sport is a recent invention. Why that is, I'm not sure. My suspicion is chess players want to be labeled as a sportsman for some reason.
If you include chess as a sport, well you've opened up the floodgates to that definition. What about checkers? Cluedo? Poker (bridge was being considered by the IOC as an olympic sport for 2020)? Speed sudoku? Rubix cube competitions? Rap battles? What about Magic the Gathering, pokemon cards, and the plethora of other games that many people play, and are passionate about.
To those who do take the semantic arguments, by picking similarities between sports and chess, and those who find criteria which they consider must be met to be a sport. It's probably a futile exercise because there is not a universally recognised definition of sport to make such a comparison.
E-Sports did not try to absorb itself into the definition of sports, it just made its own variant category of e-sports. Seems like the more sensible way to do things.
The important question is, should we, not whether or not it is. I say we shouldn't because it does nothing to elevate the game of chess, which is already wonderful and rich, and it does harm to the definition of sports because it would widened the definition unnecessarily.
Let me be one of the first to mention. Very well articulated. Without trying to denounce your closing comments in any way . It's hard to overlook the way you represented yourself throughout this entire debate. Displaying an inordinate level of arrogance and a delusional self-importance. However, I must say, that your final observation expresses an almost 180 degree turn. I say "almost" because there is still tinge of hubris. Refreshing to say the least
Chess is a mixture, then, of sport and game.
It's a gort. It's a spame.
I think chess to be a sport
Chess is a sport. Deal with it.
Chess is 100% a game. WHY SO CONFUSED ABOUT THIS ???
Chess can't be defined as a sport, and chess is not a sport. If you think it is, you are mistaken, and you should look into it more.
And trust me, EVERY single thing you find online about the subject, we have covered 5 times in this forum.
chess is not a "natural kind". there is no essence to "sport". its like wittgenstein trying to find the essence of what a game is. Family resemblance is all you have in these cases. Its not that rich a topic until someone DOES want to treat chess as a natural kind and make decisions on what events go in a sports competition and what not. Then you have messy conflicts of interest where no side will be fully happy .
STUPID QUESTION!
Chess is definitely a sport.
Saying chess is definitely a sport is like saying a triangle is definitely a square. They are both shapes, they both have sides, they both have no rounded edges, so they must be the same.
I dont know why its so hard for people to find a dictionary these days.
Chess is a sport and an e-sport. In sports, there are injuries. In the Rapid and Blitz (or some other tournament), Wesley So cut his hand hitting the clock. In the world championship match between Korchnoi and Karpov, they were kicking each other under the tables. In sports, exercise is needed. In chess, tournament players walk around. In sports, the heart rates of the competitors goes up. In chess, when there is a threat made, the heart rate of the person who made the threat will go up. In conclusion, chess is a sport.
Chess is a sport(not a sport of phisycal strength,but a sport of the mind.)That proves @r2d2bb8 wrong once and for all.
Jun_Wang wrote:
Chess is a sport(not a sport of phisycal strength,but a sport of the mind.)That proves @r2d2bb8 wrong once and for all.
Yeah and you don't have ANY valid evidence that we can't refute to support your statement. Please give us a reason why it isn't a sport.
The International Olympic Committee recognises some board games as sports including chess
The IOC recognizes the FIDE as an organization, but the IOC does not recognize chess as a sport.
My response to Blockhead Bud.
I don’t want to waste any more time with this pig ignorant individual. By the same token I don’t see why the mentally defective town drunk should be continually prominent on this thread. So once posted, I will occasionally copy and paste this to caution newcomers of this truly obnoxious individual. This I take on as a service to the chess.com community.
He and many others argue that sport needs a physical component separate from the brain to be called ‘sport’. I am not unsympathetic to this viewpoint. However I believe a significant minority, including myself argue that chess is within our definition of sport. Numerous dictionaries include definitions of sport that don’t include vigorous movement. Blockhead Bud will not accept that there are certain words in English usage that can mean different things to different people.
He continually misrepresents others points of view and accuses others of name calling while continually dishing it out himself. His contention that cerebral pursuits aren’t covered by dictionary definitions is a lie, and he knows it. At first, I admired his resoluteness, but after a while I realised I was dealing with a pig ignorant liar who is immune to reason.