Why No Chess in Olympics? - Chess Forums - Page 2

austinmcmurtrie

Oct 5, 2019

0

#21

Khoi142 wrote:

The Olympics only had physical sports, so no board game.

Chess is physically demanding.

"Chess players do not compete based on athletic prowess, but it is essential for elite chess players to be in excellent physical shape. Games between elite players often last 7, 8, or even 9 hours."

lfPatriotGames

Oct 5, 2019

0

#22

Chess_in_Olympics wrote:

I think of the Olympics for the most popular sports. 600-800 million people play chess in the world. Chess is a very popular sport and is considered a sport by the International Olympic committee. I think chess is probably more mentally and physically enduring than some of the sports already in the Olympics.

I have nothing new to add, so I'll repeat what everyone else has said, in case you missed it. Chess is not a sport, so it's not in the Olympics.

What a committee thinks is only important for that committee. For example, your city council forms a committee to discover that people with red hair dont pay enough taxes. It's a pointless observation, just like some committee determining tic tac toe, Monopoly, or chess are sports. They aren't. Physical "enduring" has nothing to do with something being a sport. It's athletic prowess, ability, skill, that makes a recreation a sport. Chess has none. If something is physically demanding to be a sport, then putting shingles on a roof is a sport.

Ultimately the main reason chess isn't, and probably wont be in the Olympics is viewership. Nobody would watch it so there is no point in doing it. Why would the Olympics, which depends on viewership, do something that turns off viewership?

AussieMatey

Oct 5, 2019

0

#23

To encourage viewership.

Bsmooth

Oct 5, 2019

0

#24

They could have an entire board game division... Chess, Checkers, Yahtzee, Scrabble, Parcheesi, Monopoly, Chutes and Ladders, etc...

Strangemover

Oct 5, 2019

0

#25

IMO the Olympics should include only events where winning the Olympic gold is the pinnace.

sashko331

Oct 5, 2019

0

#26

ssssss

Strangemover

Oct 5, 2019

0

#27

sashko331 wrote:

ssssss

Profound stuff.

Destiny

Oct 5, 2019

0

#28

btickler wrote:

The Olympics is for important sports, like running and cycling in small circles, swimming and making jerky arm motions with tons of makeup on, twirling ribbons, sweeping with brooms really fast, putting on jodphurs and looking serious while sitting on horses who prance and jump, and tossing heavy metal balls and discs.

Looks like someone got picked last in dodgeball in middle school.

brianchesscake

Oct 5, 2019

0

#29

lfPatriotGames wrote:

Ultimately the main reason chess isn't, and probably wont be in the Olympics is viewership. Nobody would watch it so there is no point in doing it. Why would the Olympics, which depends on viewership, do something that turns off viewership?

if it was dependent on viewership then Olympics wouldn't have a bunch of events that nobody watches, but they still include those "sports".

austinmcmurtrie

Oct 5, 2019

0

#30

I could not find the definition of an "important sport" on google. "Important sport" sounds opinion based.

I think chess should be in the Olympics because it's an "important sport."

OneThousandEightHundred18

Oct 5, 2019

0

#31

Tournament chess already has a very robust system of competitions. Many Olympic sports don't have such things and the pinnacle of their achievements are the Olympics. Why put chess in when we already have the FIDE world cup, candidates, etc.?

Chess_in_Olympics

Oct 5, 2019

0

#32

People do watch chess. Large chess events have a lot of viewers, for example Anand vs Carlson.

This link has statistics of viewers from the match: http://www.chessdom.com/between-100-and-200-million-have-followed-the-match-anand-carlsen-on-tv-every-day/

austinmcmurtrie

Oct 5, 2019

0

#33

Chess_in_Olympics wrote:

People do watch chess. Large chess events have a lot of viewers, for example Anand vs Carlson.

This link has statistics of viewers from the match: http://www.chessdom.com/between-100-and-200-million-have-followed-the-match-anand-carlsen-on-tv-every-day/

A lot of viewer.

DiogenesDue

Oct 5, 2019

0

#34

NonSequitur7 wrote:

btickler wrote:

The Olympics is for important sports, like running and cycling in small circles, swimming and making jerky arm motions with tons of makeup on, twirling ribbons, sweeping with brooms really fast, putting on jodphurs and looking serious while sitting on horses who prance and jump, and tossing heavy metal balls and discs.

Looks like someone got picked last in dodgeball in middle school.

Didn't go to "middle school". I was actually good at dodgeball and never got picked last (that would be baseball), but best at soccer. Also played quarterback for my squadron while in the Air Force. Any other assumptions you'd like to make?

There's just a point in a maturing human being's life (though sadly a lot of people never do get there and die while still in a kind of extended adolescence) when they realize that professional sports are a consumerist money grab that preys on (mostly beta male) human nature and the need for people to associate themselves with a winning team or individuals. It's a form of insecurity, as most competition is. When you express that insecurity, people extract money from you for tickets, merchandise, beer, pay TV packages...it's a rather extensive form of exploitation at this point in history. Feudal jousting or Roman gladiators had nothing on us ...

Plays sports, fine. Watch sports and get all caught up in them...different story. The Olympics are far from the worst exploiters, but the proliferation of medals for ridiculous sports or for meaningless manufactured offshoots and variants of "main" sports is out of hand.

OneThousandEightHundred18

Oct 5, 2019

0

#35

I enjoy watching chess (and occasionally some physical sports) just to appreciate their level of skill. I don't care much who wins

lfPatriotGames

Oct 5, 2019

0

#36

brianchesscake wrote:

lfPatriotGames wrote:

Ultimately the main reason chess isn't, and probably wont be in the Olympics is viewership. Nobody would watch it so there is no point in doing it. Why would the Olympics, which depends on viewership, do something that turns off viewership?

if it was dependent on viewership then Olympics wouldn't have a bunch of events that nobody watches, but they still include those "sports".

Yes. Thats the point. Even if it's an almost sport, but people watch, it could be in the Olympics. Chess has neither quality. It's not a sport, and very, very few people would watch. Got to at least have one, preferably both qualities. The Olympics has sports that very few people watch, but they are sports. It's pretty obvious there is no need for chess, or any other board game, in the Olympics.

ItsMeCheesiepie

Oct 5, 2019

0

#37

lfPatriotGames wrote:

Chess_in_Olympics wrote:

I think of the Olympics for the most popular sports. 600-800 million people play chess in the world. Chess is a very popular sport and is considered a sport by the International Olympic committee. I think chess is probably more mentally and physically enduring than some of the sports already in the Olympics.

I have nothing new to add, so I'll repeat what everyone else has said, in case you missed it. Chess is not a sport, so it's not in the Olympics.

What a committee thinks is only important for that committee. For example, your city council forms a committee to discover that people with red hair dont pay enough taxes. It's a pointless observation, just like some committee determining tic tac toe, Monopoly, or chess are sports. They aren't. Physical "enduring" has nothing to do with something being a sport. It's athletic prowess, ability, skill, that makes a recreation a sport. Chess has none. If something is physically demanding to be a sport, then putting shingles on a roof is a sport.

Ultimately the main reason chess isn't, and probably wont be in the Olympics is viewership. Nobody would watch it so there is no point in doing it. Why would the Olympics, which depends on viewership, do something that turns off viewership?

So if sports are based off of athletic prowess, ability, and skill, wouldn’t competitive marching band be considered a sport?

austinmcmurtrie

Oct 5, 2019

0

#38

ItsMeCheesiepie wrote:

lfPatriotGames wrote:

Chess_in_Olympics wrote:

I think of the Olympics for the most popular sports. 600-800 million people play chess in the world. Chess is a very popular sport and is considered a sport by the International Olympic committee. I think chess is probably more mentally and physically enduring than some of the sports already in the Olympics.

I have nothing new to add, so I'll repeat what everyone else has said, in case you missed it. Chess is not a sport, so it's not in the Olympics.

What a committee thinks is only important for that committee. For example, your city council forms a committee to discover that people with red hair dont pay enough taxes. It's a pointless observation, just like some committee determining tic tac toe, Monopoly, or chess are sports. They aren't. Physical "enduring" has nothing to do with something being a sport. It's athletic prowess, ability, skill, that makes a recreation a sport. Chess has none. If something is physically demanding to be a sport, then putting shingles on a roof is a sport.

Ultimately the main reason chess isn't, and probably wont be in the Olympics is viewership. Nobody would watch it so there is no point in doing it. Why would the Olympics, which depends on viewership, do something that turns off viewership?

So if sports are based off of athletic prowess, ability, and skill, wouldn’t competitive marching band be considered a sport?

The Olympic committee considers chess a sport.

The Olympic committee does not consider competitive marching band a sport.

ItsMeCheesiepie

Oct 5, 2019

0

#39

austinmcmurtrie wrote:

ItsMeCheesiepie wrote:

lfPatriotGames wrote:

Chess_in_Olympics wrote:

I think of the Olympics for the most popular sports. 600-800 million people play chess in the world. Chess is a very popular sport and is considered a sport by the International Olympic committee. I think chess is probably more mentally and physically enduring than some of the sports already in the Olympics.

I have nothing new to add, so I'll repeat what everyone else has said, in case you missed it. Chess is not a sport, so it's not in the Olympics.

What a committee thinks is only important for that committee. For example, your city council forms a committee to discover that people with red hair dont pay enough taxes. It's a pointless observation, just like some committee determining tic tac toe, Monopoly, or chess are sports. They aren't. Physical "enduring" has nothing to do with something being a sport. It's athletic prowess, ability, skill, that makes a recreation a sport. Chess has none. If something is physically demanding to be a sport, then putting shingles on a roof is a sport.

Ultimately the main reason chess isn't, and probably wont be in the Olympics is viewership. Nobody would watch it so there is no point in doing it. Why would the Olympics, which depends on viewership, do something that turns off viewership?

So if sports are based off of athletic prowess, ability, and skill, wouldn’t competitive marching band be considered a sport?

The Olympic committee considers chess a sport.

The Olympic committee does not consider competitive marching band a sport.

Just so you aren’t worried about my mental health, I do not consider competitive marching band a sport.

lfPatriotGames

Oct 5, 2019

0

#40

ItsMeCheesiepie wrote:

lfPatriotGames wrote:

Chess_in_Olympics wrote:

I think of the Olympics for the most popular sports. 600-800 million people play chess in the world. Chess is a very popular sport and is considered a sport by the International Olympic committee. I think chess is probably more mentally and physically enduring than some of the sports already in the Olympics.

I have nothing new to add, so I'll repeat what everyone else has said, in case you missed it. Chess is not a sport, so it's not in the Olympics.

What a committee thinks is only important for that committee. For example, your city council forms a committee to discover that people with red hair dont pay enough taxes. It's a pointless observation, just like some committee determining tic tac toe, Monopoly, or chess are sports. They aren't. Physical "enduring" has nothing to do with something being a sport. It's athletic prowess, ability, skill, that makes a recreation a sport. Chess has none. If something is physically demanding to be a sport, then putting shingles on a roof is a sport.

Ultimately the main reason chess isn't, and probably wont be in the Olympics is viewership. Nobody would watch it so there is no point in doing it. Why would the Olympics, which depends on viewership, do something that turns off viewership?

So if sports are based off of athletic prowess, ability, and skill, wouldn’t competitive marching band be considered a sport?

Yes, it certainly could be. It has all the requirements for a sport. It's recreation, it's competitive, and it requires physical skill. It seems it would be just as much a sport as competitive dancing, cheerleading, or synchronized swimming. Just because it's a sport doesn't mean it is, or should be, in the Olympics though. I'm sure they have to limit the number of events. For the Olympics to retain any credibility they probably will never have chess. If they ever did allow it, I imagine the other board game enthusiasts would all want THEIR "sport" in the Olympics too. Nothing draws a crowd like a 9 hour game of Monopoly.