Is chess a sport or game?

i'm trying to break the code

Hey what are those babes above me doing.

Do they play chess also?

The Olympic committee gives credence to sports in the Olympics. They say it's a sport. Chess is one of the ones that they believe have to much mechanization.

I tried to look up mechanization and never found what they meant.

Look at the bottom of one of the pages of Wikipedia. It list all the ones that are not allowed although they say are sports.

 I get it...a dig at me :-)

What does that have to do with my post?

Game!

I believe this whole issue will never be settled because it is an argument of opinions.  Indeed, there are many definitions of the word "sport,"  from many different camps.  Whose to be believed?  Who is right?  No one, and everyone.  Whether chess is a sport depends solely upon who's definition you choose to "believe."  It all comes down to opinion.  Why are we arguing over opinions?  Everybody has one.  I think it's probably more important that we recognize all opinions not based upon fact, to be of the same value as your own.  Not to put too fine a point on the matter but..."Can't we all just get along?"  We all love chess.  So isn't that more important than fighting over how we classify it?  I'm just sayin.  

I maintain that this is an argument about the definitions of "game" and "sport" themselves, rather than the nature of chess.

For some reason, there are people who attach value judgements to "games" versus "sports", generally viewing the latter as superior.  For these people, the desire to "elevate" chess into a worthwhile endeavour requires that they stretch the definition of sport to the point where they can rationalize the inclusion of chess.

the fact is, the differences between games and sports are differences of kind, not of degree.  To be clear, chess is a game.  If a value judgement need be applied anywhere, it is that chess is the best game.

We are all Post Modernist now.

Let the skinny kids call their chess prowess a sport.  They clearly want it.  Don't let the jocks and MMA folks deny them this designation.  The Olympic Committe surely doesn't want to deny them.

And stop pushing this Betrand Russell logical positivism crap from 100 years ago about values, opinions, judgements, and mindless "definitions."  It's entirerly too much a straightjacket for human conversation.

Persuasion includes, inter alia, facts, logic, models, metaphors, speaker, audience, and historical context.  Wiki doesn't cut it, and "it's just someone's opionion," is NOT an argument.  It's nothing more than a bald assertion.

We are all Po-Mo now.  Get with the human program.

yeah, we got it the first time.

Yes.  To be clear, let us be clear.  Your first paragraph puts forth the premise that some people consider "sport" to be a higher endeavor than "games."  I agree.  "Sport" in most cultures is considered a higher "pursuit" than playing games.  Why is this so?  Is it not that a game is something that both game and sport have in common?  That is to say that playing a game applies to both chess, checkers, soccer, and the 100m freestyle?  Does not chess aim to best another through wit and experience? Is not soccer the very same with only the marked difference of physical acts limiting and shaping the game?  Both chess and football share the common element of stragey.  They both require using the brain to it's most efficent potential.  But where chess is left behind is not only the emphasis, but the requirement, that the best physical athelete will almost certainly win.  Sport requires a comittment to physical skill. Chess, although sympthetic to fitness, is by no means ruled by the laws of physical nature.  All that being said, the second premise that the lovers of chess seek to skew the mean and include chess as a "sport" is beside the point.

You go on to make a bold statement in your last paragraph.  You say "to be clear, chess is a game."  With this statement, you have completely side stepped the argument and failed to address the real question.  "Is chess a game or a sport?" and more importantly what is meant by asking the question.  For you to continue on by saying that because you have pronounced chess a game, and that because we accept that fact (we don't because your argument is not sound) then the real question is "is chess the best game?" We are left wondering why the heck do we not feel obligated to answer your question.  I believe, the reason is that you haven't really addressed the underlying question.  Which is why do we want chess to be a higher form of "game?" That, I believe, is a question that is best answered by those who pose it.  

All things considered, Thegrobe insists that we consider what our arguments are really arguing.  His or her premise that we must look deeper into ourselves is spot fucking on.   Words are representations of ideas, the highest forms of humanity and intelligence.  Let us say what we mean and mean what we say.  I'm just sayin'. 

words are for the weak.

you don't consider any of these activities athletic?   it seems like you're lying.  

Huh?  My declaring "to be clear, chess is a game." sidesteps the question of whether chess is a game or a sport?

I don't know, it seems to address it pretty pointedly, actually.

It goes like this:

ok.  and i still think you're lying.  or you don't know anything about the activities you've listed.

ooooh.  burned.

i'm no match for such your dizzying intilect.