To all of those who say chess isn't a sport

Chess should be in the Olympics whether it's considered a sport or a game. Chess is both. The Olympics are called "The Olympic Games", involving competition to see who is the best at his or her sport or game. There are certain "sports" in the Olympics which a spectator can not tell who wins such as Synchronized Swimming, Gymnastics, Figure Skating, etc, which rely on "judges" to tell us who is the winner. Chess, however is a game, just like Basketball, Hockey, Track and Field, where there is a definite winner or loser. Therefore it should be in the Olympics. 

Sorry Roy, but until surfing is in the Olympics, chess will have to wait 

 Tic tac toe, however is a game, just like Basketball, Hockey, Track and Field, where there is a definite winner or loser. Therefore it should be in the Olympics. 

Although I have not heard of the Olympic Games as a whole referred to as the Olympiads, I have heard of a particular Olympics referred to as an Olympiad. For example, the 1932 Los Angeles Games calls itself the 10th Olympiad in its emblem. (See http://www.olympic.org/en/content/Olympic-Games/All-Past-Olympic-Games/Summer/Los-Angeles-1932-summer-olympics/Los-Angeles-1932-Collection/)

Therefore, your comment doesn't carry as much weight as you like; the difference you're trying to point out isn't that clear cut. You could say that sports like soccer are played in olympiads as well, and your statement would be just as valid.

No, because also Tic Tac Toe, is not a game or sport that requires any skill. Chess does. Basketball does. While chess does not require physical skill (although the professional chess players may tell you that if you are physically fit it will help them succeed) It does require as much mental skill as any physical sport. Is pushing chess pieces any different, than a coach maneuvering players around a field to succeed in plays?

I think a lot of people want to be able to classify chess as a sport so they can validate it to themselves as a worthwhile endeavor. People probably freak out because they don't want someone thinking they spend their valuable time on something akin to Monopoly. To me, chess is combat at the board. I don't care if it is a sport, or if is nerdy as the other great arguement goes. Chess is chess, and whatever the individual person needs to turn it into in order to fit it in their life, so be it.

 Where do we stand on Connect 4?

Actually, try playing tic tac toe against an experienced opponent.  Then try playing against a child.  Against the experienced opponent, you should never do better than draw, while against a child it is likely that you will win most of your games.  It certainly doesn't require as much skill as chess, but it does take a bit of logic.  Ultimately, we could fiddle around all day with what's a sport and what's a game, but it all comes down to personal belief, because no one is ever going to be able to convince anyone else that their game is actually a sport or vice versa.  Do I consider chess a sport?  No, because personally my view is that sports place an emphasis on physical activity.  Not to say there can't be a mental element involved, but the primary focus should IMO be physical skill.  I also think the IOC definition, while certainly quite definitive, could be used to define absolutely any activity that uses any physical motion at all a sport.  All you have to do is create an organization, and presto, you're in business!  Breakfast eating? Sport.  Cake decorating?  Sport.  Competitive breathing?  Sport.  

+1

If Chess is a sport, then so are checkers, playing Monopoly, or poker.  Even by the IOC rules listed above, there are official poker tournaments played all over the place, it's even televised on TV, and there is physical movement involved (you have to pick up your cards, hold them, and throw chips into the pot).  I'm sure if I dug deep enough, I could find official checkers and Monopoly leagues, too, which should qualify them for inclusion in the Olympic games.  And seeing as how board games like Risk are slightly more complicated strategy games than chess, they should be included as well.  What about professional Soduko tournaments?  Boggle?

Personally I don't care if anyone calls chess a sport or not.  It's still a completely interesting game whether or not the players want to consider it a sport.  But to me it's not a sport unless you put in some physical exertion.

Yes. Nobody goes to games to watch the coach.

You are comparing athletes to plastic/glass/marble chess pieces.

Athletes play sports. Chess pieces do not.

While I already agreed with Fezziks post I want to add another comment.

Please cut it out with the boggle, tic-tac-toe, soduko crap.  The point of an Olympic game is taking people who have focused incredible amounts of time and energy into testing the limits of human ability at a certain skill.  Games like Monopoly or Risk are going to be mastered in no time at all (and largely involve chance and psychology, skills not specific to the game skill itself).

The only reason chess is being mentioned alongside Olympics here (and in the past by others) is because like other Olympic activities, a person can clearly spend a lifetime testing the limits of human ability at a certain activity.  It's just as easy to relegate things like gymnastics or hockey to trivial wastes of time as it is anything else.  Mentioning even more mundane games like connect 4 isn't adding anything useful to the argument.

Scrabble then.

The stupid thing is that this is really an argument about the definition of the word "sport" rather than the nature of chess.

I've said it previously in similar discussions:  I don't know why the comparison of the word "game" and the word "sport" carries some sort of an implied value judgement for some.  It is a difference of kind, not one of degree.  Do we really need to take such liberties with these definitions to validate the already laudable commitment to a game that stands above all others based on a misguided sense of the superiority of "sport" over "game"?

 Connect 4 is a pure strategy game, without any element of risk or chance.  It employs opening strategies, control of different segments of the playing board, flank attacks, and more.

It is far from "even more mundane" than Risk or Monopoly.  It is, in fact, an excellent comparison to chess in many ways.

It is also absurd to think anyone might call it a sport.  From this, you might draw your own conclusions about your misguided allegiance to one game over the other, in terms of sport-worthiness.

Or is avoiding that sort of emotional disconnect the sort of thing you meant when you warned against, "adding nothing useful to the argument?"

Any chess player who has played Connect 4 against the "bar girls" of South-East Asia will know that there's more to it than meets the eye.

I don't see you guys rating
The kind of mate I'm contemplating
I'd let you watch, I would invite you
But the queens we use would not excite you

You got it.

Chess falls under the category of sport if you look up the definition of sport.