Is Chess a Sport?
Sort:
TheGrobe, when have you ever known human beings to agree on a clear answer to any question? Much less a question revolving entirely on a personal opinion/definition of a word. If people can argue over whether or not something is red, then they will certainly argue over what a sport is no matter how thoroughly somebody proves beyond all doubt what is or isn't. People have skewed definitions of things, that's what makes life fun: proving that your definition is less skewed than theirs and then silently laughing at their naivety when they keep arguing, because it totally obvious that you're right and their wrong. "You" of course doesn't necessarily mean you.
batgirl wrote:
...
I think it's taut and it's logical, but I'm not sure it's tautological.
...
Points for style -- you'll at least get no argument from me on that.
Apr 5, 2008
0
#44
Let me point out that in June of 1999, the International Olympics Committee did indeed recognize chess as a sport.
That being said, let me add that I personally disagree with the IOC. Chess is not a sport. To me, a sport is an activity requiring a degree of physical skill. Chess can be played with no physical component whatsoever (i.e., both opponents playing blindfold), so while it's definitely a mental challenge, it's not a physical one.
I hate to do this, but as a student of philsophy (and specificially logic) I feel bound to inform the forum that if there is one thing a tautology can never be, it is false. By definition tautologous statements (like "it is either raining or it isn't") are always true.
As to Batgirl's statement, it was beautiful. However, I would put another question forward to build upon her idea of chess as both a sport and an art. Is it possible chess is a "martial art?" It does after all incorporate the mind and body to perform acts of imaginary war (over a board, of course).
Apr 5, 2008
0
#46
"Points for style"
hmm, now debate is comparable to figure-skating which is an
Olympic. . . Sport? . . . Game? . . . Event?
We've shown that Chess isn't exactly a Sport. Nor is Chess exactly an Art. And, since there's no element of chance, neither is it exactly a Game.
Perhaps, like figure-skating, Chess is an Event?
@Jasn: I am just curious...is that all it takes for something to be a sport? It seems to me like there needs to be maybe an element of competition or something else. I mean, otherwise, me walking to class is a sport. 
I think taking the SAT is a sport...because its a mental challange where you are scored agaist other people, you train for it in a variety of ways, have multiple opportunities to participate in it, like in chess luck is generally not a factor, and the people who do better are given higher scores and rewarded with better collegate choices......
...Does this sound stupid to anyone else??????
Hmmm, interesting argument by analogy and reductio ad absurdum. So according to you chess and the SAT are the same thing (roughly). If the SAT is not a sport then neither is chess. But do you really think chess and the SAT are the same? If not, why not? The differences will probably answer the question of why chess is at least more of a sport than the SAT.
Apr 5, 2008
0
#50
I first heard about Bobby Fischer's death on ESPN, and I'm pretty sure ESPN shows only sports.
The term Intellectual Sport has been used to describe games and activities for which competition is organized and some reward (such as money or trophies) can be gained.
Chess is one of the best examples of an Intellectual Sport, but others exist (such as Professional Poker or the championship series' for certain video games).
It may not be an athletic endeavor, but it is a Intellectual Sport.
Very interesting Niven42. I haven't heard that before.
TheDuke850 wrote:
I was just reading the posts for "is chess racist?" and saw that some how the discussion had shifted to what qualifies for a sport... I have no idea how, but these sorts of things do seem to happen. Anyway, I thought that was something that could have its own forum. So, what do you think? is chess a sport?
I believe chess is a sport. To me anything that is competative is considered a sport,whether some say it is and some say its not,can really in my opinion only be determined by that persons opinion,not to say they are wrong but i think that is all in what one wants to believe if it is a sport or not.BUT, with that said does that person love chess?I think if someone loves chess they will see it as a sport.
cubfan2 wrote: I don't think chess is a sport. according to me, a "sport" is something that requires physical ability. Anyone who can sit down can learn how to play chess
That isn't true at the highest levels of competition. To be good at Chess requires some certain level of skill too, which even though is not physical, is not something "everyone" can do.
Niven42 wrote: cubfan2 wrote: I don't think chess is a sport. according to me, a "sport" is something that requires physical ability. Anyone who can sit down can learn how to play chess
That isn't true at the highest levels of competition. To be good at Chess requires some certain level of skill too, which even though is not physical, is not something "everyone" can do.
I agree, Niven2. I mean, my dog can sit down, but he can't play chess.
(Sorry, but everyone else got to make up a fun reductio, so I just had to!)
tderifield wrote:
By definition tautologous statements (like "it is either raining or it isn't") are always true.
What about "the electron is either spin up or it isn't"
Sorry, I don't get it. If you are trying to point out that some sentences are neither true nor false, you are right, but that doesn't have much to do with tautologies being sentences which are always true..."the electron is either spin up or it isn't" is just a nonsense sentence without content. Or did I miss the point? :-)
Well, what if it was both raining and not raining at the same time. In that case "it is either raining or it isn't" is not true
If it were possible for it to be both raining and not raining, then contradictions would be true and, if contradictions were true, then everything would be true. I would be George Bush and a professional ballerina...wow, weird mental picture. Anyway, contradictions are the opposites of tautologies, they are always false. In the case you pointed out, however, "it is either raining or it is not" is what we fancy logician types like to call a non-exclusive disjunction. That means that this or that or both. So if my wife says we can get pizza or make out and she means it as a non-exclusive disjunct then I can safely assume we can both get pizza and make out (trying to keep it PG). Either way, my tautology is still true because both disjuncts are true (it is both raining and not raining).
Just because something is tautological does not mean it's a fallacy. I've loved discovering tautological truths at the base of many investigations.
"When speaking of Chess as sexist, we're referring to those sexist attributes (that we perceive it to have) and when speaking of Chess as racist, we're referring to those racist attributes (that we perceive it to have)".
Still works.
I agree that just because a statement is a tautology does not necessarily mean it is untrue, but as a standalone argument it is circular and doesn't hold much water as a result -- it just is what it is. Adding the perception qualifier, in my mind, also serves to weaken the argument because it turns what was intended to be an objective statement into a subjective one.
In any case, I'm not trying to be argumentative (although it is in my nature), I just think there's a pretty clear answer to the question and that a lot of people have a skewed perception of what constitutes sport -- it's no wonder there are obesity epidemics in many western nations.