JagdeepSingh wrote:
Well chess is not driving car, its playing a game. Try finding a new example as the one you gave was irrelevent
Chess is a sport
JagdeepSingh wrote:
Well chess is not driving car, its playing a game. Try finding a new example as the one you gave was irrelevent
Chess is a sport
Nope its just a game not a sport. The definition of sport is "an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment"
Anything else?
RedGirlZ wrote:
ESP-918 wrote:
Why are we talking about how men is better at chess? The topic is not about that.
You were sexist with your implications in your original content, what do you expect.
If you call being observant, critical, laying the facts straight a sexist then ok
I see what the problem here is: you think that "observant" and "sexist" are mutually exclusive adjectives. Spoiler alert, they're not.
JagdeepSingh wrote:
Nope its just a game not a sport. The definition of sport is "an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment"
Anything else?
Chess is a sport which mean yes part of it has to do with physical activity.
Don't argue with me , try to argue with Olympic committee and tell them, that they are wrong calling it a sport.
Good one.
In my personal opinion, men are much cockier and egotistical than women in general...and before anyone says that I am a woman,let me state that I am a man,well a 'boy' to be exact but still you get the point.
lfPatriotGames wrote:
I know how the pieces move.
Now we are getting more on topic, this is pretty good so far is the best answer out of all given.
That's actually pretty good deep in psychology answer very polite but at the same time you are laughing at them and giving them the slap on the face. 💪
Or maybe she's laughing at you.
Nope its just a game not a sport. The definition of sport is "an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment"
Anything else?
I will give it ago. Kasparov makes mention in his book "How Chess imitates life" that during a match (I think from memory, his 1st against Karpov), that he lost an amount of weight during the course of that match. The question then based upon your logic is what exactly is physical exertion? Surely Kasparov did not lose weight during the match by having it anally removed? Logically there must have been some sort of exertion on his body for such to occur? Maybe you could argue stress but then again his body reacted physically to the exertion of that stress. Maybe yes, maybe no.
What I do know for sure, the chess pieces do NOT move around the board by the share will of the human mind alone. They have to be physically moved. Exertion therefore exists in chess, All be it in minor amounts but it is there.
Result of your definition: fail.
I agree with Hadron (#58) I had ocassion to weigh myself before playing OTB chess, the games lasted 3-4 hrs. The prize was bragging rights, I lost 3-4 lbs during those games.
I realize my body weighs differently during the course of any given day, due (in part) to my movements, fluids, and even the time of day.
I know I have a high metabolism rate, I have always wondered if that was the primary cause of the weight fluctuation.
I had experienced this same phenomenon on other ocassions involving more physical exertions, but those were easily understood.
I have been thinking about the original question and I have to wonder, given some of the answers, isn't it predicated upon what the definition of 'know' is ? I am sure I think I know how to play chess but that is 'know' in the sense that I know how to set up a board, I know how the pieces move and I know how to win games at and to a certain quantifiable standard (under ELO for instant).
But do I 'know' how to play chess as in FULLY understand it? Probably not. If I did I would have a rating in 5 figures having not lost a game in the last 45 years as the planets longest running chess champion.....and as good as such fantasy sounds, if you not learning something new trying to come to grips with new ideas and new concepts.....really whats the point?
"Rating 200 maximum", lol troll. Below 800 is meaningless at that point (ie total newbie, which is being generous).
I think the more exacting response would be 'I'm a female you sexist twit' don't confuse your twits with your twats.
Some many people, especially females THINK they know how to play chess.
I see this so often , you ask someone :
Hey, want to play a game?
Nah , not now , but we know how to play.
Some other 1000's examples , especially females saying yeah sure we know how to play .
Ok let me make this clear basically , why I said mostly females , because if men say we know how to play they will have at least some knowledge like rating 300+
When women says I know how to play chess she means I KNOW HOW THE PIECES MOVES.
Ok , so this thread is not about abuse or bringing someone down all I want to ask is:
What do you say to someone who says they know how to play chess, some sort of response that will let them know they actually don't , if you know what I mean.
Something in a short form , that will embarasse them or give them a clear idea better to say.
Just remember some people so cocky saying , that they know how to play it , when they actually only knows how the pieces moves or rating 200 maximum
Well, maybe they're better at grammar.
Well chess is not driving car, its playing a game. Try finding a new example as the one you gave was irrelevent