Whether or not chess is a sport

show yours bud

Whether or not chess is a sport is certainly subjective, and the purpose of this thread is to not actually find a solution to the question - but to express that the question itself honestly has no solution.

Organizations can define and redefine all they like - but that only changes the definition in their circle of influence.  It does not change it for everyone.

Let's suppose the United States government made an official decree naming chess a sport.  Does that make it a sport?  Sure - for those that believe in the intellectual authority of the United States government.  I don't.  I will maintain my own definition of sport and how chess is relative to it regardless of any organization's position.

I have refuted many a definition of Merriam-Webster strictly because of the definition being illogical.  Being that US English is based primarily on usage and not some logical equation, some definitions are just - stupid, and no one can change my personal definition outside of involuntary conditioning.

So again, outside of funding and/or politics, whether or not chess is a sport is irrelevant.

Naaa. I'll drop the idol before Christmas though. Maybe sooner.

is foosball a sport then?

For some?  Sure.  Others?  No.

lol, good question. 

Earlier on in the thread, I even discussed that some could have a logical foundation to argue that even math homework itself can be a sport.

But whether or not it is, like spelling bees, is irrelevant - and really just a personal opinion.  There are no facts in the subjective realm.

And I'm not saying all of existence is subjective.  Far from it.  But there is certainly a good deal that is.

chess is a sport, but it is not a physical sport. it's more of a mental sport.

There have been countless reasons listed why chess is not a sport. And there have been a couple reasons listed why some people believe chess is a sport (almost always related to competition, personal belief, or biased recognition by a non-neutral party).

There haven't been any new reasons why chess could be a sport, but every once in a while a new reason comes up why it isn't. I was playing a game a few days ago and we were talking about pieces (we are going to make an outdoor board and need giant pieces). So the pieces need to be high quality, so they don't weather in the rain and snow and sun. 

Which then led to the topic of what happens if they do wear out. Will they still work? In sports, it seems like the equipment often is very precise, and if it wears out, the performance in the sport is jeopardized. In golf if the ball has a big crack in it, in tennis if the strings are faulty, in soccer if the ball is deflated, etc. In sports sub optimal equipment leads to sub optimal performance. 

But it seems to me in chess, and checkers and many other board games, condition of equipment has no bearing on performance. 

Some people like to say that the IOC claims chess could be a sport. But what IOC sport does NOT rely on high quality equipment for optimal performance? If chess is the only one, maybe that's a pretty big hint that chess shouldn't be included 

The biggest fan of "chess is a sport" realized chess is not a a sport, so he decided to stop with that nonsense. Hopefully he's playing chess (or at least something productive) irl. 

Good point in #51.

It's like we're talking about cybersports, I mean the problem is linguistic in relation to when we advise children or teenagers to do sports activities.

Doing sports activities in the context is not playing chess, go game or video games but doing combat sports, swimming, athletics etc. 

After the rest we don't care,

there are some who waste their time debating whether or not ping pong is a sport because it wouldn't be physical enough compared to a combat sport... yes it is in a sense a sport but not necessarily a sport that fulfills your needs.

Chess in a sense is a sport, an intellectual sport but of course it won't help you develop physical skills like in combat sports.    

Chess is a sport, if sport is exercise (fitness) of a part of the body. Here is the proof.

(1) Sport is exercise (fitness) of a part of the body.

(2) Chess exercises the brain.

(3) The brain is a part of the body.

(4) Hence, chess is a sport. q.e.d.

At least, (3) is the case for my body. And that's the rule for most any people. If for anybody here in the forum or elsewhere the brain is not a part of her/his body, then for this very special person, chess is no sport.

Of course, my brain is physical. I haven't looked into my skull yet, but I am pretty sure it is within.

Which means any mental activity, like thinking about how to grow rhubarb is a sport. Not growing rhubarb mind you, THINKING about growing rhubarb. Because, as you said, the brain is physical. I think most "chess is a sport" people abandoned that approach long ago, because it didn't make sense to label every single human activity (mental or physical) a sport. 

„Which means any mental activity, like thinking about how to grow rhubarb is a sport.“

No. It is no exercise. Likewise not any walk of two meters is a sport.

„it didn't make sense to label every single human activity (mental or physical) a sport.“

I agree. I wanted to have short premises. You almost never include all conditions. So, if you will, premise (1) is

„(1a) Sport is exercise (fitness) of a part of the body in a competitive manner.“

When you assure „Water boils at 100 degree Celsius“ you also don't mention all other necessary requirements.

You don't get to cherrypick. You do have to be true to the general principles. Thinking about how to grow rhubarb is a sport because it's mental exercise and all mental exercise is sport.