There is a global debate as to whether chess is a sport. It was played in the 2006 Asian Games but was not allowed in the 2012 London Olympics, despite being recognised as a sport by the International Olympic Committee. Chess is my passion and I firmly believe that it should be played in the Olympics alongside football, fencing and rowing. The research I have undertaken supports my argument that chess is a sport.

The article ‘When is a Sport not a Sport?’ by Wayne Norman, a philosophy teacher at Duke University, has many interesting ideas about what defines a sport. Norman says that sports require “game, competition, physical skill and ability,” enabling sports such as football and rugby to fall easily into this category. He also writes that he “would never call chess a sport,” as he does not believe that chess requires physical skill. However, many argue that chess does require a lot of physical skill, a strong competitive spirit and has significant recreational potential.

The grandmaster Kladmir Kramnik once remarked during an interview that he “lost 10kg during a match,” in November 2000 with Gary Kasparov, showing clear physical strain and exhaustion. This statement is further supported by Vik Hansen, a teacher and philosopher, in his article ‘Is chess a sport?’ where he writes “thought requires calories.” Hansen mentions Anatoly Karpov, who also lost 10kg during a 1984 match with Kasparov. Many argue that the loss of calories is due to mental strain. Hansen takes the debate further saying that “even internal mental activity is a genuine physical and physiological activity,” asserting that mental strain is physical strain. Hansen further argues that physical skill is required by saying that “external corporeal motion depends on internal cerebral motion,” or that physical skill depends on mental skill, which is the core of chess. So stop hitting the gym and play chess instead!

The significance of fitness to chess is further highlighted in “Chexercise: Chess and Physical Fitness,” an article by the Princeton university student and chess player Miles Hinson. Hinson quotes the Soviet champion Nikolai Krogius, who says that the grandmaster Bobby Fischer paid “great attention to sport,” during the 1960s. Fischer got exclusive use of his hotel’s swimming pool for certain hours during his Reykjavík tournaments, played tennis and even boxed regularly to keep in good shape. He looked after his diet carefully, inspiring many future grandmasters such as Gary Kasparov, Vishwanathan Anand and Magnus Carlsen to follow him. Anand attributed much of his 2013 success to his physical regime which led to weight loss and muscular build-up. Carlsen, regarded by many as the best player ever, runs for hours on the treadmill for mental focus and physical stamina.

Those who argue that physical fitness is insignificant to chess have never played it to a high, competitive level. At such a level you must train yourself physically for the long hours spent at a chessboard.

Chess has been played with far higher stakes than any other sport in history. Since the 6th century A.D, kingdoms around Asia and the Middle East were won and lost through a simple game of chess. Even the current India-Bangladesh enclave negotiations have their roots in games of chess. According to BBC News, the Maharajah of Cooch Behar and the Nawab of Rangpur used villages as wages in games of chess. The 1947 partition of India saw more enclaves being formed here than anywhere else in the world. Such is the significance of a game of chess.

Even in modern times chess is unrivalled in terms of competitiveness. An article published by the Guardian highlights the tension. Most notably, it describes Bobby Fischer being restrained for passionately shouting during his match against Boris Spassky, as he fought for the USA’s honour in the Cold War. Indeed, when I played chess nationally, I could not sleep before important tournaments. I was even more stressed than before the National Schools’ Regatta, although many describe rowing as the ‘toughest sport.’   

Those who have not played chess competitively have never played with the stakes of the grandmasters and kings. Therefore, they naturally do not understand the extent to which chess is competitive.

Thomas Edison’s statement “Genius is 1% inspiration, and 99% perspiration,” is as true in chess as in all other sports–without hours of effort a player will never succeed in their field. However, reaching the top levels of chess is also largely dependent on a player’s ability. At age 13, Magnus Carlsen drew with the grandmaster Gary Kasparov, who practised far more than him, displaying immense natural talent. Currently, he has the highest rating ever, despite not practising as frequently as most other grandmasters. Additionally, Vladimir Kramnik says that chess moves come naturally to him, showing the significance of natural talent.

Those who argue against chess requiring ability may believe in a stereotypical image of pushy Asian parents forcing their children to play hours of chess. They argue that the ability to focus and think logically comes purely from practice. However, mere practice does not explain how Carlsen drew with one of the best players ever at age 13.

Chess does provide significant recreation to those who fully understand the logic involved. Many enjoy discovering the best move to win them a critical piece or to observe and learn from such moves. To these individuals, chess may be more recreational than typical sports. Chess does require a sharp mind and great focus to follow and play, which bores many sports fans. Indeed, it will never become a large spectator sport like cricket or football. However, it does nevertheless have recreational potential, albeit to the few who can appreciate it.  

Those who argue against chess having recreational potential do not consider others’ mindsets. They do not consider the appeal of chess’s complex logic, but simply regard it as a slow-paced, sluggish game. I assure you that chess is not so.

From ancient times, sports have been linked to physicality and masculinity. Sports were far more physical than at present and the performance gap between men and women was significant. Gender equality was also absent from sport in the past. However, in the modern era, sports have started to reflect gender equality, like all aspects of society. In typical sports, although women can participate, they do not compete alongside men. However, in sports like rifle shooting and chess both the genders can participate together and a woman can often beat a man.

Rifle shooting is very similar to chess. It is simply aiming and pulling a trigger, as chess is simply positioning and placing a piece. However, for preparation in both, hours of running, swimming and mental training go into building concentration, focus and endurance. The sport aspect comes from mental skill, focus, precision and balance. Rifle shooting is largely supported as an Olympic sport, so why should chess not be?

The old mind-set is incompatible with the idea of sports being gender neutral. A lot of people therefore believe that gender neutral activities like rifle shooting and chess cannot be considered  a sport.

The teachings of an activity are critical to it being a sport. All sports help to improve a player’s character in different ways. For example I have learnt teamwork from rowing. Chess is agreed by many to be one of the most educative activities in the world. In the form of chess-boxing it helps to defuse violence by building patience, as a report from ‘Scientific American’ says. It also teaches a player about sacrifice and loss, as they may have to sacrifice a piece to win the game. Finally, chess improves a player’s brain activity and focus. After all, anyone who has to sit in a silent room for hours, only staring at plastic pieces needs intense concentration to succeed.

Some argue that all activities teach some skill. Even monopoly teaches money management, but is not granted the title of a sport. This notion is creditable, yet those activities do not develop a player’s behaviour to the extent that chess does, and therefore should not be granted such a title.

Finally, chess is too significant to be denied the title of a sport.  It has a much higher social context than a simple game of cards. According to legend, chess was formed for the Indian King Iadava, following his battle with the conqueror Varangul. Chess was designed to depict this war. Since then, kingdoms around Asia and the Middle East have been won and lost by rulers from a simple game of chess. Chess is currently being used in intelligence training for warfare. According to the BBC article ‘Has chess got anything to do with war?’ chess was used as a metaphor for the Cold War by the Soviet Union and USA. The battle between Bobby Fischer and Boris Spassky in 1972 is the best example of this. The significance of chess to war and enemy conquest is greater than that from any other sport, contrary to the belief of many.

Many still argue that chess is not as significant as other sports. They argue that all the preparation on the chessboard will not prepare an army for the physical struggle of war. While there may be merit in this argument, can any sport ever prepare a player for the mental struggle to the extent of chess? Sports like running may prepare a player physically, but not mentally. Chess is used in military strategy and to build mental strength, so has more applications than mere physical training.

Racewalking was a sport in the London 2012 Olympics. Competitors are not allowed to run and have to walk for the whole race, while being strictly monitored. Arguably, this sport requires little natural ability, is hardly recreational in a competitive format, teaches very few lessons and does not test humans to their limits. If such a sport is not only considered a sport but accepted as an Olympic sport, then why should chess not be a sport?

The activities that are considered sports are always changing as public opinions and definitions develop. For some activities there is a gap between officially being recognised as a sport and public opinion. Chess has fallen into this category. Today chessmay not be in the Olympics, nor does it have the same popularity as other typical sports. However, this should not take away from it being considered a sport. In which other sport can a player lose 10kg from a match?

Hey guys! This was my English language GCSE coursework on why chess is a sport. I was very pleased to receive full marks on results day :). Please leave any comments. Thanks a lot!

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/is-chess-a-sport14 , on 2017-Jan-23, has a post about this same question.

I like your essay too! I particularly like you mention of the need to control the body to achieve a stillness which supports the mind and its need for full energy and focus, which is a form of physical control that lesser players are less good at. In the Olympics they honor the same principle in a different way - a player must do the hard work of cross-country skiing then stop and steady his huffing body to shoot straight.

The problem with discussions on whether chess is a sport is that "sport" is not a term of art, that is a word or phrase with a precise meaning in a given field but which may (or may not) have a wider and less specific meaning in general use. There is, for example, no argument about what a mammal is. If someone asks if x is a mammal the question can be answered. "Sport" is a word like "music", "poetry" or "art". We bandy it about without giving too much thought to what the word covers, but when we get to look at it and talk about it we may find the concept a bit slippery. We may end up shrugging our shoulders and saying "I know it when I see it." The fact that there are endless threads about whether chess is a sport indicates that we have no clear definition of what amounts to a sport.

And what is lacking in the arguments of those who assert that chess is a sport is a definition of sport. Definitions and classification often proves trickier than people think. If you want chess to be a sport you have to come up with a definition which includes chess. Once you have done that you have a look at your definition and see what else it includes. If it covers activities few consider a sport (say, spelling bees, short story competitions and quizzes) you have to start again. The conclusion which can be drawn from many posts arguing that chess is a sport is that any activity which involves competition is a sport.

I think that Wayne Norman is on the right track, though what is missing from his definition is that physicality must be significant to the essential nature of the activity. All activity involves some expenditure of energy and so that cannot be a defining characteristic of a sport without qualification. If we look at all the activities currently included in the Olympics we can say of all of them that you need to get your body right in some way. That does not apply to chess. You can play chess, but not badminton, by correspondence.

The argument that you play chess better if your are in good shape holds no water because you do everything better if you are in good shape. Losing weight is no indicator either - you can lose weight giving a piano recital - and Karpov lost his 10 kilos over 21 weeks, not over one game.