why no chess in Olympics
Sort:
Cuz chess is kina gay😁
kkl10 wrote:
It's hilarious how people keep talking ignorance straight out of their asses instead of making a minimum effort to actually inform themselves about they're talking about.
Where is it written or what is the rationale behind the claim that only physical activities can be sports?
I already handed out references where people can get informed about the term "sport." Roughly speaking, any activity--be it a physical activity, a board game, a card game, or whatever--that is entertained in a competitive basis can be considered a sport.
That is a ridiculous meaning for sport because then literally everything is a sport. Our conversation "can be considered a sport". Painting "can be considered a sport". Doing a scientific experiment "can be considered a sport". Digesting your last meal "can be considered a sport". Rate of decomposition after death "can be considered a sport". It's incoherent and doesn't stand up.
There are many different dictionaries and they give many different definitions. I don't like using the word "ignorant", but since you've started it what IS true that only ignorant and uneducated people consider what they read in a dictionary to be some final truth and absolute authority. Dictionaries are written based on how language is commonly used by people, not the other way around where the dictionary dictates the meaning.
The meaning of the word "sport" for thousands and thousands of years has been a physical activity. It was the original meaning and spirit of the word and that's what I will be sticking to. Pretty much the ONLY reason people started calling it a sport was because sports get special designation, time and finances, designations which were originally based partly on the idea of sport being good partially because of the physical activity. The physical activity being good for exercise, coordination, dexterity, flexibility, agility and so on. None of which are involved in a non-physical game like chess.
The idea of chess being a sport is screwball logic and used by people who want to pretend chess has all the qualities of sport when it does not.
As stated above, language is an abstract concept and not set in stone. You can call anything anything else. As stated there are some supposedly reputable people backing the idea of calling chess a sport, just don't expect that to mean everyone is going to come along and recognize it as being a sport. In my view it is a false designation and it's worse because it was manufactured through lies and has no business being called a sport.
It's okay, it doesn't take away from the game of chess that it's not a sport. Maybe it takes away from sport that chess isn't one of them. But imo it's the only sensible idea of sport.
Aug 8, 2016
0
#103
....'cuz it's a board game. Then D&D & Magic & Checkers & Monopoly & Ouija & Twister would all hafta be admitted.
....make sense ?
Aug 8, 2016
0
#104
The_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
....'cuz it's a board game. Then D&D & Magic & Checkers & Monopoly & Ouija & Twister would all hafta be admitted.
....make sense ?
Um no..
What the's problem in admitting D&D & Magic & Checkers & Monopoly & Ouija & Twister to the Olympics?
Aug 8, 2016
0
#105
The_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
....'cuz it's a board game. Then D&D & Magic & Checkers & Monopoly & Ouija & Twister would all hafta be admitted.
....make sense ?
Meh, slippery slope fallacy... but it does give other board games of skill leverage... and chess is really boring to watch for hours at a time. So probably it wont be an Olympic sport.
Uhohspaghettio1 escreveu:
That is a ridiculous meaning for sport because then literally everything is a sport. Our conversation "can be considered a sport". Painting "can be considered a sport". Doing a scientific experiment "can be considered a sport". Digesting your last meal "can be considered a sport". Rate of decomposition after death "can be considered a sport". It's incoherent and doesn't stand up.
There are many different dictionaries and they give many different definitions. I don't like using the word "ignorant", but since you've started it what IS true that only ignorant and uneducated people consider what they read in a dictionary to be some final truth and absolute authority. Dictionaries are written based on how language is commonly used by people, not the other way around where the dictionary dictates the meaning.
The meaning of the word "sport" for thousands and thousands of years has been a physical activity. It was the original meaning and spirit of the word and that's what I will be sticking to. Pretty much the ONLY reason people started calling it a sport was because sports get special designation, time and finances, designations which were originally based partly on the idea of sport being good partially because of the physical activity. The physical activity being good for exercise, coordination, dexterity, flexibility, agility and so on. None of which are involved in a non-physical game like chess.
The idea of chess being a sport is screwball logic and used by people who want to pretend chess has all the qualities of sport when it does not.
As stated above, language is an abstract concept and not set in stone. You can call anything anything else. As stated there are some supposedly reputable people backing the idea of calling chess a sport, just don't expect that to mean everyone is going to come along and recognize it as being a sport. In my view it is a false designation and it's worse because it was manufactured through lies and has no business being called a sport.
It's okay, it doesn't take away from the game of chess that it's not a sport. Maybe it takes away from sport that chess isn't one of them. But imo it's the only sensible idea of sport.
Indeed, any activity that consists of a competitive showcase or 'game' of skill can be considered a sport. But none of the examples you mentioned qualify because they're not intently pursued as such. You see, to compute a sound meaning of "sport" today it's not enough to account only for what the activity consists of--how and why it is entertained also matters.
This type of debate could be considered a sport if it was intently entertained on a competitive basis as a game of wit or arguing skills. The same could be said for painting or scientific experiments if those were intently pursued as competitive games of their respective skills. There's nothing incoherent about the meaning I left above. It's a very rough resume, but it is sound, correct and coherent with how many relevant major institutions interpret the word "sport." Chess is a sport because people intently entertain it on a competitive basis and it requires skill.
Digestion or rate of decomposition don't qualify as sports because those are no humanly performed activities. Just natural processes.
Language is indeed abstract and not set in stone, thus, it is common practice and often necessary to rethink the meaning of certain words to accommodate for new developments in human behavior, knowledge, societal paradigms, technology, science, etc. Dictionaries have to keep up with the changes. For this very reason, it is indeed a bit limiting to regard the word of a dictionary as absolute truth. But for the purposes of this discussion, I think most people would be much more well-informed if they actually tried to check the dictionary (I assume most people aren't willing to put in the effort, or simply aren't smart enough, to actually reflect about and understand the fleeting semantic connotation of words like "sport").
There isn't always a consensus, but it's possible to agree on the soundest meaning by accounting for the reality of the time. The soundest meaning of "sport" today may not be the same it was thousands of years ago (if it was different at all) because today's world is very different. So it doesn't make sense to limit it to "physical activity" anymore; there's no reason why that should be. The main underlying premise of the word "sport" is competition, not "physical activity". The meaning of a word cannot be stuck in dated light just because you want it to be. Your feelings are irrelevant.
kkl10 wrote:
Indeed, any activity that consists of a competitive showcase of skills can be considered a sport. But none of the examples you mentioned qualifies because they're not intently pursued as a competitive test of skills. You see, to compute a sound meaning of "sport" today it's not enough to take into account what the activity consists of--how and why it is engaged in also matters.
This type of debate could be considered a sport if it was intently entertained on a competitive basis as a game of wit or arguing skills. The same could be said for painting or scientific experiments if those were intently pursued as competitive games of their respective skills. There's nothing incoherent about the meaning, I left above.
Okay so you're saying sport has to be taken up by a lot of people and pursued. Well the examples I listed could become sports then if pursued and taken seriously. According to you, a painting competition is a clear example of sport. Making a bet, a clear reckoning of one person's wits against another with a clear outcome, is sport. Speedreading = sport. Exam-taking = sport. Gardening competition = sport. World of Warcraft = sport. They're all pursued diligently and competitively. Just so we're clear on what you're saying should be a sport.
Digestion or rate of decomposition don't qualify as sports because those are no humanly performed games of skill.
Well, decomposition would be all in the preparation... obviously. Digestion would be mainly in the preparation, but you would also have to have the "skill" to hold someway steady, even if that's an easy skill. Okay, scratch anything that might clearly interfere with health... the ancient art of sewing. Also note that I'm not judging your treatment of these things as sports, just that it's not what I would go for.
Language is indeed abstract and not set in stone, thus, it is common practice and often necessary to rethink the meaning of certain words to accommodate for new developments in human behavior, knowledge, societal paradigms, technology, science, etc. Dictionaries have to keep up the changes. For this very reason, it is indeed a bit limiting to regard the word of a dictionary as absolute truth. But for the purposes of this discussion, I think most people would be much more well-informed if they actually tried to check the dictionary (I assume most people aren't willing to put in the effort, or simply aren't smart enough, to actually reflect about and understand the fleeting semantic connotation of words like "sport").
There isn't always a consensus, but it's possible to agree on the soundest meaning by accounting for the reality of the time. The soundest meaning of "sport" today may not be the same as it was thousands of years ago (if it was different at all) because today's world is different. The meaning of a word is cannot be stuck in a dated light just because you want it to be. Your feelings are irrelevant.
I don't dispute any of this except the last sentence "Your feelings are irrelevant.".... my feelings and those of people who use the word are the ONLY thing relevant thing to the meaning of the word. I may be only one of 3 billion people who are going to see or use the word, but my feelings on what the word "should" be are just as relevant as any other of those people. And for categorization purposes and grouping like with like, I prefer that chess is not categorized as a sport.
Up until 1948 the Arts were competed in the Olympics. There were medals in Poetry,Architecture,Painting,and Literature. It was hotly debated to allow Film to be a competition. The IOC considers chess a sport. I consider it to also be an art form. They should also include chess composition in future Olympics.
Aug 8, 2016
0
#109
Senior-Lazarus_Long wrote:
Up until 1948 the Arts were competed in the Olympics. There were medals in Poetry,Architecture,Painting,and Literature. It was hotly debated to allow Film to be a competition. The IOC considers chess a sport. I consider it to also be an art form. They should also include chess composition in future Olympics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wRwZrThGXI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur5fGSBsfq8
Senior-Lazarus_Long wrote:
Up until 1948 the Arts were competed in the Olympics. There were medals in Poetry,Architecture,Painting,and Literature. It was hotly debated to allow Film to be a competition. The IOC considers chess a sport. I consider it to also be an art form. They should also include chess composition in future Olympics.
lol... oh this.
"chess is an art and a science and a sport and a type of poetry and a form of mathematics and logic and a medium of communication and a philosophy of the world and an expression and craft and a cryptogram and a study of psychology and intelligence."
No it's not, chess isn't any of these things. Maybe you can find things in common with those if you search, but you can't say chess is those things.
Yes I can;why not?
Well you can say it, but that won't make it true.
Everything can't be described as everything by stretching the words, otherwise words lose all meaning.
Uhohspaghettio1 escreveu:
Okay so you're saying sport has to be taken up by a lot of people and pursued. Well the examples I listed could become sports then if pursued and taken seriously. According to you, a painting competition is a clear example of sport. Making a bet, a clear reckoning of one person's wits against another with a clear outcome, is sport. Speedreading = sport. Exam-taking = sport. Gardening competition = sport. World of Warcraft = sport. They're all pursued diligently and competitively. Just so we're clear on what you're saying should be a sport.
I don't dispute any of this except the last sentence "Your feelings are irrelevant.".... my feelings and those of people who use the word are the ONLY thing relevant thing to the meaning of the word. I may be only one of 3 billion people who are going to see or use the word, but my feelings on what the word "should" be are just as relevant as any other of those people. And for categorization purposes and grouping like with like, I prefer that chess is not categorized as a sport.
Please don't corrupt the meaning of my words. There's usually a whole organization and logistics involved in the recognition of an activity as a sport. It's not so simple as you make it.
And if you base your understanding of the meaning of words on your feelings... well, there isn't much we can talk about.
By the way, I'm not sure where you're basing the claim that the word had a specific connotation with physical activity thousands of years ago... Maybe it would help to check the etymology of "sport." The Wikipedia article for "sport" already accounts for most of this discussion we're having. Not a difficult read.
Aug 8, 2016
0
#114
Well actually sometimes one gets the impression that if it weren't for the last minute nothing would get done.
kkl10 wrote:
Uhohspaghettio1 escreveu:
Okay so you're saying sport has to be taken up by a lot of people and pursued. Well the examples I listed could become sports then if pursued and taken seriously. According to you, a painting competition is a clear example of sport. Making a bet, a clear reckoning of one person's wits against another with a clear outcome, is sport. Speedreading = sport. Exam-taking = sport. Gardening competition = sport. World of Warcraft = sport. They're all pursued diligently and competitively. Just so we're clear on what you're saying should be a sport.
I don't dispute any of this except the last sentence "Your feelings are irrelevant.".... my feelings and those of people who use the word are the ONLY thing relevant thing to the meaning of the word. I may be only one of 3 billion people who are going to see or use the word, but my feelings on what the word "should" be are just as relevant as any other of those people. And for categorization purposes and grouping like with like, I prefer that chess is not categorized as a sport.
Please don't corrupt the meaning of my words. There's usually a whole organization and logistics involved in the recognition of an activity as a sport. It's not so simple as you make it.
And if you base your understanding of the meaning of words on your feelings... well, there isn't much we can talk about.
By the way, I'm not sure where you're basing the claim that the word had a specific connotation with physical activity thousands of years ago... Maybe it would help to check the etymology of the word "sport." The Wikipedia article for "sport" already accounts for most of this discussion we're having. Not a difficult read.
As I clearly pointed out, our feelings are the only way words have any meaning or any existence whatsoever. If 3 billion people speak english (total guess), my feelings have exactly 1/3,000,000,000 relevancy. Language is defined by the people that use it. Language changes over time.
What the chemical composition of Saturn is, our feelings have ZERO impact on that. Is that what you're confusing this with? Our feelings obviously do not affect or interact with physical phenomena. They are completely tied up with what a word means.
I'm getting quite irritated with you now because I thought we had already just worked out that language is flexible and holds different meanings for different people. Maybe it's best to just drop the discussion but it's amazing to me you're coming out with that. Don't come back and contradict me again because you will be wrong. I tried to end the discussion with a mutual understanding and acknowledging your new version of the word "sport", I don't see why you didn't just leave it at that.
I will have to insist that kkl10 reads Quine's Word and Object (or at least understands what it's about) before I continue discussing with him any more.
LOL
That was a funny reaction. If I misinterpreted your statements, it should be easy to clarify without getting riled up.
I'm not familiar with Quine's work. Is that where you're coming from? Word and Object seems to make a couple of interesting points about the behavioral assimilation of language and meaning.... ok. Cannot comment on that. Doesn't seem reasonable to expect people to be acquainted with particular philosophical views on language or the emergence of meaning, nor to be able to decipher them from your previous text.
If what you were trying to say was that people assimilate the language by associating meanings to 'feelings' on a pseudo-instinctual level, I can see how that might be the hypothetical case. But it's just hypothetical... Nevertheless, it does look like humans have the ability to override this sort of internal bias by consciously applying new data to update past 'references'. So I can't see why someone would be reluctant upon a sound opportunity to do so.
If this is not at all what you were talking about, feel free to clarify.
One could say that beliefs emerge from 'emotionally imprinted data'. I'm not sure that meanings can be treated or classified as beliefs. Or maybe they are 'malleable beliefs', not 'core beliefs'.
naviik wrote:
chess need to be added in Olympics game
When a sport gets into the olympiad it gets contaminated with doping.
