Is chess a sport or a game

How about this: if you can tell someone what to do and just have them do it for you, it isn't physical enough to be a sport. You can do this with chess, you can do this with checkers, you can do this with chess, you can't with pool or snooker or golf. Of course that only takes care of a physicality argument, and there's still other issues of being a sport - i.e. rope-climbing is very difficult physically, but it isn't a sport.

Note: I just thought all this up, so it may not be foolproof, but it's a stab.

Well what happens during a basketball game isn't "finite" and everyone agrees that its a sport. The number of possible chess games is for all intents and purposes infinite, and that doesn't even matter considering for the context of two people playing a game there is no point at which the ideas will run out. There is no sense in pointing to the abstract and saying something like "well if a supercomputer comes along and solves chess"-then it would be a merely a "game" to the supercomputer because an end has been reached. To us humans that point is moot. The possibilities for us wont ever be exhausted.

I think that an attempt to come up with an innovative definition that would directly relate the term "sports" to physical exortion is a lot of trouble with no gain to anyone. To my eyes, it would have been sufficient to use it like that several centuries ago, when at Morphys era chess really was little more than a game and list of sporting activities was smaller.

As I see it, at modern era the term "sports" is getting less straight-forward : along with mind sports, different cyber sports and remote control sports stepping in. At these areas the level of competition and a required exortion - mostly psychological but at times perhaps also physical may definitely be comparable to purely physical sports.

Using your supposed level of physical exortion as bases, I could also now start to claim that taking out a wallet from my pocket or sawing a tree is a sport and common shooting sports are not. Which might lead to contradictional nonsense.

I'll try another simple disqualifier: If you can still play it while your are grossly obese it is clearly not a sport.  I don't think I'm the one who doesn't understand what a sport is, sports are physical in nature -- it's as simple as that.

There seems to be a lot of emotion involved in the "chess is a sport" camp that I think is rooted in the feeling that if chess doesn't make the grade as a sport it is somehow inferior to other activities that do.  I think this is the reasoning flaw that is causing people to make outlandish and ridiculous justifications for an unsupportable position.  Just because chess isn't a sport doesn't diminish it in any way.  It's a game -- ganted, the best game ever and superior to many sports in my opinion, but still just a game.

Actually the number of possibilities in a basketball game is finite, just incredibly large. I could get into the physics of it, but you wouldn't appreciate it. From a practical standpoint, however, there are also probably only several hundred billion different possibilities. I was basing all this on your saying that checkers is now a game because it was solved. It too, is only solved for the computers, and human players have vast different possibilities, not too different from chess.

Simply put - I consider your ideology out of date. No emotions involved from my part in supporting the "chess is a sport" option.

What makes it emotional, is the tendency to call the opposing views "outlandish" or "ridicilous" and attempting to force your "solely right" view on others when it is clearly an issue with different possible point of views - i think that should generally not be acceptable:P  

The topic could just as well be about any other mind sport field (like bridge for example), or any other less physically demanding sports listed before (computer gaming sports, shooting, motor sports, remote control sports etc)

Okay, table tennis and NASCAR are sports in my opinion. Someone else said grandmasters consider being in shape important. I agree. Of course it is. Study psychology. A healthy body builds a healthy mind, thus someone who wants to be successful at chess better plan on going the gym to work at mental optimum.

However, table tennis and NASCAR are sports and chess isn't. This, of course, is still just my opinion. Table tennis can be physically exhausting, and requires just as much form and technique as regular tennis does. As for NASCAR, spectating reveals very little if you do not understand cars and the physical demands on the driver's body. It's stressful to the body, especially against the G Forces. Someone talks about how much harder it is to keep it straight in 75 mph than 25 mph. That is a sort of good example, but an actual race car is MUCH harder than that.

Chess has physical demands as well, but it's not a sport in my opinion. Why? Differences in physical ABILITY does not matter. A receiver vs. corner, who's faster? better at making cuts? Ping pong, reflexes, form, technique. Etc. Etc. Chess does not reward players for being better at picking up pieces and moving them. While there is a physical endurance involved in highest-level of play, that definitely doesn't apply to amateurs like me, and to me, the fact that you can play chess against other people online clearly show that the physical aspect of the competition is very minimal and insignificant, proven by the fact that the better player in chess still wins most of the time with no regards towards physical health/ability at all.

In conclusion, I believe chess is not a sport because you do not practice any physical aspect of it. You don't practice picking up pieces and setting them down, or moving around to activate your brain. While in sports, such as basketball, you practice the jump shot, the lay up, crossovers, etc.

Sorry for long post.

It could by about any of those things and my position would be the same -- they are not sports.  Any of them could be performed by a morbidly obese person who none of us could, in good faith, call an athlete.

sport

you exerscise your mind

last night i dreamt, that Suggo loved me, no hope no harm just another false alarm...

"Athlete; a person trained to compete in sports"

Physical fitness has nothing to do with whether or not a person is defined as an athlete.

It's just fun to debate. And as for the poster who said video games cause obesity, many things cause obesity :P But video game competitions are starting to become very popular, and many "pro gamers" exercise and prepare physically for them the same way many chess players physically prepare themselves for chess games xD

So to you, someone who is morbidly obese could qualify as an athlete?

What I think is important about defining a sport is not the players but the rules of the game. I think chess should probably be called a mind sport which gives it that technical distinction. Though my personal opinion is that chess is representative of the elements that makes up a sport and I would go so far as to say that it is an archetypal sport. The fact that it is a board game instead of a physical activity is besides the point.

...it's a powerful instrument in sport n' in games to further acknowledge hidden visions, unknowinglly hidden on our neurons,... to attain individual refinements in life, as in also anticipating conformity on 'the next level...

Exactly

Morbidly obese. I'm talking John Pinette -- not Tommy Lasorda

Disclaimer: Only read page 8.

I don't get the "morbidly obese" argument.  Obese people can play sports, just maybe not as well as someone in better physical condition. 

While chess doesn't rely on physical conditioning as much as other sports, it definitely does require some conditioning and physiological endurance. Healthy mind, healthy body.. that sort of thing.

I don't see why it can't be a sport and a game.  I wouldn't necessarily call it athletics though.

That's not the entirety of the disqualifier though -- the other piece is that they're also competitive at the top level of the game.