Why is chess a sport?
Sort:
NoDiff
Jan 30, 2023
0
#61
More of a game than a sport
Chess is a sport because it requires physical and mental skill, strategy, and focus. It also requires physical exertion, as it takes energy and concentration to concentrate for long periods of time. In addition, chess can be competitive, as players strive to outwit and outplay their opponents.
Building a scale model of the Houses of Parliament out of matchsticks requires physical and mental skill, strategy and focus. It would be necessary to concentrate for long periods.
The idea that chess requires physical skill is ludicrous.
why not?
MelvinGarvey wrote:
I short, you sure may believe chess is no sport. And you sure may say it, as long and as many times you want.
But you need to be aware, that by doing so, you do claim that every and each sports authority around the world is illegitimate and that their judgement over the question "What is a sport?" has no value at all.
And for what I know, it sure may have no consequences at all over your life. As long as you don't engage official sports competition with that mindset, lol.
That's such a bad argument it isn't even an argument. Sporting bodies have a vested interest in claiming as much as they can as sports, so their claims or opinions need not be taken seriously.
Jan 31, 2023
0
#67
Mayan ball courts 1000 BCE. Early American sport.
Jan 31, 2023
0
#68
Optimissed wrote:
MelvinGarvey wrote:
I short, you sure may believe chess is no sport. And you sure may say it, as long and as many times you want.
But you need to be aware, that by doing so, you do claim that every and each sports authority around the world is illegitimate and that their judgement over the question "What is a sport?" has no value at all.
And for what I know, it sure may have no consequences at all over your life. As long as you don't engage official sports competition with that mindset, lol.
That's such a bad argument it isn't even an argument. Sporting bodies have a vested interest in claiming as much as they can as sports, so their claims or opinions need not be taken seriously.
In other words, expertise is of no value. Those who have invested their lives in learning something must be presumed to be biased. To avoid such bias, we must canvass the ignorant.
It isn't.
Chess is a game, an overrated game. Not a sport.
Ziryab wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
MelvinGarvey wrote:
I short, you sure may believe chess is no sport. And you sure may say it, as long and as many times you want.
But you need to be aware, that by doing so, you do claim that every and each sports authority around the world is illegitimate and that their judgement over the question "What is a sport?" has no value at all.
And for what I know, it sure may have no consequences at all over your life. As long as you don't engage official sports competition with that mindset, lol.
That's such a bad argument it isn't even an argument. Sporting bodies have a vested interest in claiming as much as they can as sports, so their claims or opinions need not be taken seriously.
In other words, expertise is of no value. Those who have invested their lives in learning something must be presumed to be biased. To avoid such bias, we must canvass the ignorant.
Their *possible* expertise has to be balanced against their vested interests, which definitely exist. A possible, balanced against a definite.
I know you believe chess should be recognised as a sport but making such a bad argument does you nor your opinion no credit. Actually an argument from authority, Good grief!! 
Jan 31, 2023
0
#71
Optimissed wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
MelvinGarvey wrote:
I short, you sure may believe chess is no sport. And you sure may say it, as long and as many times you want.
But you need to be aware, that by doing so, you do claim that every and each sports authority around the world is illegitimate and that their judgement over the question "What is a sport?" has no value at all.
And for what I know, it sure may have no consequences at all over your life. As long as you don't engage official sports competition with that mindset, lol.
That's such a bad argument it isn't even an argument. Sporting bodies have a vested interest in claiming as much as they can as sports, so their claims or opinions need not be taken seriously.
In other words, expertise is of no value. Those who have invested their lives in learning something must be presumed to be biased. To avoid such bias, we must canvass the ignorant.
Their *possible* expertise has to be balanced against their vested interests, which definitely exist. A possible, balanced against a definite.
I know you believe chess should be recognised as a sport but making such a bad argument does you nor your opinion no credit. Actually an argument from authority, Good grief!!
Your broad brush is the problem. It is a hasty generalization presented without evidence. It is also consistent with your opinions on things like vaccines, where you substitute anecdotes from a family member for the developed views of a legion of professionals.
Throwing out the expertise of all sporting bodies because of perceived vested interests. Maybe if you spent some time documenting how these interests have produced error, you would have an argument.
It's a war of the minds, not a sport
Assalomu alaykum everyone
MelvinGarvey wrote:
Anyhow, I'm pretty sure that most of them who want chess to be nothing more than a game, never engaged a real life chess tournament with the firm intent to win a prize or score much higher than their rating. Doctor? Any doctor? Me palms ar' sweatin'!
Chess is a game.
I've played probably 100 to 200 tournaments.
I've won a lot of prizes. Maybe 40 to 50. I couldn't count them and ten years ago I threw away all the trophies I won, except the club championship ones.
It' a game.
MelvinGarvey wrote:
Optimissed a écrit :
'!Chess is a game.
I've played probably 100 to 200 tournaments.
I've won a lot of prizes. Maybe 50. I couldn't count them and ten years ago I threw away all the trophies I won, except the club championship ones.
It' a game.
I've played probably 100 to 200 tournaments.
I've won a lot of prizes. Maybe 50. I couldn't count them and ten years ago I threw away all the trophies I won, except the club championship ones.
It' a game.
I said "most", not all.
Plus you don't count: you're obviously a bitter bottom hurt soul.
And you're obviously stupid.
Ziryab wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
MelvinGarvey wrote:
I short, you sure may believe chess is no sport. And you sure may say it, as long and as many times you want.
But you need to be aware, that by doing so, you do claim that every and each sports authority around the world is illegitimate and that their judgement over the question "What is a sport?" has no value at all.
And for what I know, it sure may have no consequences at all over your life. As long as you don't engage official sports competition with that mindset, lol.
That's such a bad argument it isn't even an argument. Sporting bodies have a vested interest in claiming as much as they can as sports, so their claims or opinions need not be taken seriously.
In other words, expertise is of no value. Those who have invested their lives in learning something must be presumed to be biased. To avoid such bias, we must canvass the ignorant.
Their *possible* expertise has to be balanced against their vested interests, which definitely exist. A possible, balanced against a definite.
I know you believe chess should be recognised as a sport but making such a bad argument does you nor your opinion no credit. Actually an argument from authority, Good grief!!
Your broad brush is the problem. It is a hasty generalization presented without evidence. It is also consistent with your opinions on things like vaccines, where you substitute anecdotes from a family member for the developed views of a legion of professionals.
Throwing out the expertise of all sporting bodies because of perceived vested interests. Maybe if you spent some time documenting how these interests have produced error, you would have an argument.
What on earth are you talking about?
Do you actually know what an argument from authority is?
They have vested interests because they like to empire-build. Do you verstehen das?
You are literally saying these people have authority and therefore they are right. I know you aren't quite the intellect you once were but you don't need to demonstrate it so incisively! Slow down and let it deteriorate gently, in keeping with the natural processes of aging!
Jan 31, 2023
0
#78
Optimissed wrote:
You are literally saying these people have authority and therefore they are right.
Wrong.
Never said anything of the sort.
Only pointed out that you threw the baby into the gray water pit.
Incidentally, regarding vaccines, I am a bit of an anti-vaxxer because I think we should stay healthy, not get overweight, keep fit and trust our bodies more to fight things off. But it's an opinion, to which I'm entitled, as you are to yours. Some people like you, it seems, are allowed to state their OWN opinions if they wish but they don't like contrary opinions being voiced.
That's because it undermines your authority, now, isn't it.
<<<Optimissed wrote:Ziryab wrote:
"In other words, expertise is of no value. Those who have invested their lives in learning something must be presumed to be biased. To avoid such bias, we must canvass the ignorant."
>>>
Direct quote. You're saying we should believe people who have a vested interest. Obviously if they've "invested their lives in learning something", as you clearly state, that is LITERALLY a vested interest. They work for sporting bodies which attract more money, power and prestige, the more people they have as members and the more organisations (such as chess ones) they can claim to speak for.
Speaking for people IS authority. You really come across as thick but I know it's emotion colouring your opinions and reactions. There are too many like that already. Take a deep breath and don't join them.