May not be overly intelligent, but it's truthful. You make this statement "If a committee that is solely responsible for naming the sports for the biggest competive event in the world of sports sees chess enough to qualify, you just have to deal with it."
without any real reason to believe it, completely disregarding political, economic, partisan, etc. etc. reasons why the IOC nominates sports.
If Chess is a sport then every game is a sport.
Truthful as if I do not care too much about political, economical etc background, anything i say is somehow surely related to my bum? I have trouble believing any of us is capable of seeing all the economical, political, partisan aspects to why IOC has taken such a stance. The only fact that seems to matter is that it has.
And I am sure that the game should have some sports factor in it to be even considered a olympic sport, despite various political (and so on..) reasoning behind it.
I am not going as far as taking a concrete stance. All I am saying is that if anyone wishes to see chess as a sport - there are plenty of reasons he should be allowed to do so,without people of your kind coming up with bum theories. Or being called a pointless nerd who knows nothing about "real" sports.
Bum theories: best by test :D
Are you the authority of deciding the definition then ?
I am thinking that no matter how big you bold out the word "games" in the term "olympic games", there could not be any activity there that in any way could not be seen as sports. And it is nonsense to now claim that olympic games is an event that gathers up games and is not related to sports.
If a committee that is solely responsible for naming the sports for the biggest competive event in the world of sports sees chess enough to qualify, you just have to deal with it.
No, I never said I was an authority, and I'm also not presuming to know who is.
Incidentally, saying that the IOC defines "sport", and then backing that up by saying that everything on the IOCs list is clearly a sport kind of begs the question a little....
Also, if you wish to rely on wikipedia, do not overlook this part: "Sport is an activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively. Sports commonly refer to activities where the physical capabilities of the competitor are the sole or primary determinant of the outcome (winning or losing), but the term is also used to include activities such as mind sports (a common name for some card games and board games with little to no element of chance) and motor sports where mental acuity or equipment quality are major factors."
So competing on Jeopardy then? I think it would make a great addition to the Olympics....
Your unfailing faith in organized bodies is slightly comical. The idea that the IOC is some sort of flawless sports defining body is ridiculous. What do you think is the background of the people involved? Philosophers, Grammar Majors (as in who are they to decide the definition of a word)? As pointed out they determine sports based on economic, political reasons, hell maybe because they just feel like it.
Do you know how they decided to make chess a sport? If they voted, what do you make of those who dissented? Were they idiots?
Take good old pluto for example, NASA (or whoever, I'm not sure) suddelny decided it wasn't a planet anymore. Since Pluto didn't change, this ultra-intelligent body was either wrong before or they are wrong now.
Incidentally, saying that the IOC defines "sport", and then backing that up by saying that everything on the IOCs list is clearly a sport kind of begs the question a little....
TheGrobe: you are now my favourite poster on chess.com, as you are the only person in a *long* time, anywhere, that I've seen use the phrase 'beg the question' correctly. Brilliant, thanks!
It turns out that the definition of planet before was somewhat arbitrary -- they changed it so that it is equially arbitrary, but different.
I think because they discovered a 10th "planet" (Eris officially or Xena, unofficially) that was larger even than Pluto but was actually a Kupier belt object.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eris_(dwarf_planet)
Interesting, perhaps than not the best example, but the intended theme is quite clear. (If I spent enough time I could come up with an example that works).
game......
always trust dictionary.com....:
–noun
| 1. | an amusement or pastime: children's games. |
| 2. | the material or equipment used in playing certain games: a store selling toys and games. |
| 3. |
a competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance on the part of two or more persons who play according to a set of rules, usually for their own amusement or for that of spectators.
sport-noun
|
How many more topics similar to the ones above can chess.com produce before the question is answered?
No matter what your opinion on this is, you cannot change the opinion of hundreds of others who share the opposite view
Enjoy the insignifance, it is what unites us
Is arguing on the Internet a sport?
I do not have unfailing faith in organized bodies. And neither do i have an unfailing faith in Philosophers or Grammar Majors. It is more than obvious that chess being sports or not is open to interpretation and different philosophical definitions for either of those words - "sport" or "game" do not envolve as fast as sports or games themselves do. I merely presented IOC's point of view as something one could possibly base their opinion on.
It might be true that any decision coming from IOC might be based on political or economical factors, but I do not see much revelance. You can be a philosopher with a grammar major and claim yourself the prophet of an ultimate truth - only to find that oops, economics and politics is what makes the world go round in modern world anyway.
Either way, it's not like related organized bodies do not play any role whatsoever. If you play chess, you rely on the rules of organized body - fide. They will tell you that chess is won only on 3 different conditions. They may probably have chosen this way based on economical, political reasons. Who cares. Philiosophers and Grammar majors might give you a whole lot of different definition for the word "winning". And it is not allways revelant.
What actually is comical, is that one could post this:
-noun
| 1. | an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc. |
"
and not relize that chess may fit under same terms of an activity requiring prowess of skill. Similarly to golf, fishing or racing.
chess is definitly a sport.
What do you think of chess? Is it a sport or a game? Thank you for your comment in this topic.
Ray Duque III, New York City
.......does it matter? can we just drop it? it doesn't even matter!!!!!
dictionary definition of SPORT is: "a game contest or other pastime requiring some skill and usually a certain amount of physical exercise". Therefore i would say it's not a sport.
i agree with Zizzles, Rettdaniel et al: it's both.
It's a game played between two players that is recognised by the International Olympic Comittee as a bona fide sport.
Isn't football, cricket and whatever you care to mention also both?
I live in the UK and we're holding the domestic Chess Championships at the moment, after scouring all the 'Cable' TV sport stations for a whiff of anything Chess related the closest thing i could find to anything to do with the UK championships was coverage - on a sports channel - of the UK pool championship in Blackpool.
Now I may be a bit bias, but if pool (a bar game similar to snooker - not sure what its called in US... 8 ball(?)) is a sport and receiving coverage on a sports network, i'm sure as hell Chess should be.
So there you go, i've torpedo-ed my own arguement: pool is a sport, and Chess is officially not, according to UK TV.
cheers Thatcher.
What an intelligent way to end a discussion, isnt it.