I'm not attempting to define anything, I'm simply pointing out that EVERYTHING requires physical exertion.
Is chess a sport or a game
Sort:
Aug 1, 2009
0
#163
Nearly everybody on this forum are fools! Yesterday myself and some other members discussed all of this - many posts have been deleted by chess.com as it got too demanding for some members.
What i am laughing about is that those same members are now agreeing with Boris Spassky (as I did) in saying that chess is not a sport, but a game (a great one of course!).
Fools - I win! 
uh huh...
mkirk wrote:
Nearly everybody on this forum are fools! Yesterday myself and some other members discussed all of this - many posts have been deleted by chess.com as it got too demanding for some members.
What i am laughing about is that those same members are now agreeing with Boris Spassky (as I did) in saying that chess is not a sport, but a game (a great one of course!).
Fools - I win!
Here we go again with nonsensical posts. My decision to block has now been justified.
Aug 1, 2009
0
#166
What is really making me laugh, is that neither Kupov, nor Suggo have actually made an attempt, in correct English, to answer the OP's original question.
I have clearly stated that I believe chess to be a game (and a great one). I have no idea whether they agree with me (and Boris Spassky) or not?
Yet they insist on constantly jibing me, without really saying anything related to the thread. In all probability, we all agree that chess is a great game - or we would not be playing it, would we?
I despair!
Enjoy your chess.
Suggo wrote:
mkirk wrote:
Nearly everybody on this forum are fools! Yesterday myself and some other members discussed all of this - many posts have been deleted by chess.com as it got too demanding for some members.
What i am laughing about is that those same members are now agreeing with Boris Spassky (as I did) in saying that chess is not a sport, but a game (a great one of course!).
Fools - I win!
Here we go again with nonsensical posts. My decision to block has now been justified.
Yep.
mkirk wrote:
What is really making me laugh, is that neither Kupov, nor Suggo have actually made an attempt, in correct English, to answer the OP's original question.
I have clearly stated that I believe chess to be a game (and a great one). I have no idea whether they agree with me (and Boris Spassky) or not?
Yet they insist on constantly jibing me, without really saying anything related to the thread. In all probability, we all agree that chess is a great game - or we would not be playing it, would we?
I despair! Enjoy your chess.
There isn't an answer because a concrete, set in stone definition for what makes a sport does not exist.
edit: Here's the first definition I found online, by no means is this the only definition that can exist.
"sport (spôrt, sp
rt)n.
1.
a. Physical activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively.
b. A particular form of this activity.
2. An activity involving physical exertion and skill that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often undertaken competitively.
3. An active pastime; recreation."
I don't see how chess fails to fit into any one of those categories, making it a sport right? Well no not really, however the defintion certainly does not exclude chess from being a sport...But it's silly to discuss this any further.
Also, all activity is physical activity and every action requires physical exertion.
Aug 1, 2009
0
#169
Kupov wrote:
Suggo wrote:
mkirk wrote:
Nearly everybody on this forum are fools! Yesterday myself and some other members discussed all of this - many posts have been deleted by chess.com as it got too demanding for some members.
What i am laughing about is that those same members are now agreeing with Boris Spassky (as I did) in saying that chess is not a sport, but a game (a great one of course!).
Fools - I win!
Here we go again with nonsensical posts. My decision to block has now been justified.
Yep.
I was not aware that 'Yep' is correct English. Once again, I am justified in my statements (in my last post).
Aug 1, 2009
0
#170
Kupov wrote:
mkirk wrote:
What is really making me laugh, is that neither Kupov, nor Suggo have actually made an attempt, in correct English, to answer the OP's original question.
I have clearly stated that I believe chess to be a game (and a great one). I have no idea whether they agree with me (and Boris Spassky) or not?
Yet they insist on constantly jibing me, without really saying anything related to the thread. In all probability, we all agree that chess is a great game - or we would not be playing it, would we?
I despair! Enjoy your chess.
There isn't an answer because a concrete, set in stone defintion for what makes a sport does not exist.
This is why I said that I believe Chess to be a great game. I do not remember claiming that it definitely is. The same with the horse racing debate previously- I said it was difficult to define as a sport or another. The jockeys that I asked did not think it was a sport, so I went with their opinion, as I am no expert on horse racing, but they are.
If you do not believe chess to be be a great game, why are you here?
Enjoy your chess.
mkirk wrote:
Kupov wrote:
mkirk wrote:
What is really making me laugh, is that neither Kupov, nor Suggo have actually made an attempt, in correct English, to answer the OP's original question.
I have clearly stated that I believe chess to be a game (and a great one). I have no idea whether they agree with me (and Boris Spassky) or not?
Yet they insist on constantly jibing me, without really saying anything related to the thread. In all probability, we all agree that chess is a great game - or we would not be playing it, would we?
I despair! Enjoy your chess.
There isn't an answer because a concrete, set in stone defintion for what makes a sport does not exist.
This is why I said that I believe Chess to be a great game. I do not remember claiming that it definitely is. The same with the horse racing debate previously- I said it was difficult to define as a sport or another. The jockeys that I asked did not think it was a sport, so I went with their opinion, as I am no expert on horse racing, but they are.
If you do not believe chess to be be a great game, why are you here?
Enjoy your chess.
I never said that chess was not a great game, however might I remind you that all sports are also games.
The fact that chess is;
A: a game
and
B: a pastime of limited physical exertion
Does not exclude it from being a sport, (by definition) and if chess is a sport (by definition) then chess players are athletes. And remember there is no set definition for what even constitutes a sport.
Unless every single sporting league in the world comes together and sets a standard for the amount of physical exertion required for a game to become a sport this debate can not be resolved.
Aug 1, 2009
0
#173
This is my point Kupov, it is difficult to define! I said it with chess and horse racing. Hence the 'I believe..’
It is so nice when people come around to my way of thinking.
Karl_ wrote:
Kupov wrote:
I never said that chess was not a great game, however might I remind you that all sports are also games.
The fact that chess is;
A: a game
and
B: a pastime of limited physical exertion
Does not exclude it from being a sport, (by definition) and if chess is a sport (by definition) then chess players are athletes. And remember there is no set definition for what even constitutes a sport.
Unless every single sporting league in the world comes together and sets a standard for the amount of physical exertion required for a game to become a sport this debate can not be resolved.
I think hardly anyone would say that chess players were athletes. To be an athlete you have to do something athletic. I just can't see how playing chess can be considered athletic in any way.
I've already defined athlete (a word which, unlike sport can be easily defined).
athlete
Noun
1. a person trained to compete in sports or exercises
So it stands to reason that if chess is a sport, chess players are athletes right? However the word athletic is a completely different beast as you can see below.
ath·let·ic (
th-l
t
k)
adj.
1. Of or befitting athletics or athletes.
2. Characterized by or involving physical activity or exertion; active: an athletic lifestyle; an athletic child.
3. Physically strong and well-developed; muscular: an actor with an athletic build. See Synonyms at muscular.
This is likely defined as such because as of right now most games considered sports (and remember athletes play sports) are based on major physical exertion. Were chess universally accepted as a sport, and chess players athletes, I think that the word athletic would have a slightly different definition.
For example, do you look at an Olympic shooter and say to yourself "wow what a great athlete"? I doubt it (though that's speculation). However since shooting is considered a real sport, those participating in it competitively are by definition athletes (though they might not be athletic per say).
Aug 1, 2009
0
#176
The olympics (referring to Kupov's olympic shooter) is called the Olympic Games for a reason. It is made up of games! One can of course debate which of those games are sports, and which of those games are arts.
I guess you are refering to members who post things like that:
"Nearly everybody on this forum are fools! Yesterday myself and some other members discussed all of this - many posts have been deleted by chess.com as it got too demanding for some members.
What i am laughing about is that those same members are now agreeing with Boris Spassky (as I did) in saying that chess is not a sport, but a game (a great one of course!).
Fools - I win! "
George Foreman among a lot of other heavy weight boxers (Butterbean). Other athletes would include some of the wrestles of old. There are a number of other sports where rather weighty people have competed at the highest levels, John Daly in golf along with a number of others. Sumo wrestling, it is a requirement. Shooting is another where morbidly obese people can and do compete.
If we are judging shooting on the same scale on which we are judging chess then it's clearly not a sport in many peoples eyes.
Not really. Shooting requires some physical skill. Chess does not.
Wrong. Breathing requires some physical skill, along with literally every action your body can perform, which believe it or not, includes playing chess.
Do you judge sports based solely on the amount of physical exertion required? If so I fail to see how something like hockey and shooting could even be in the same category.