chess vs soccer

Marksmanship is considered a sport, and unlike archery that requires no great strength at all, not even to draw the bow.

But, as far as comparing chess and soccer:  I'd wager that far more people throughout the world play chess than play soccer.  EVERYBODY in the world plays chess . . . everywhere.  Watching it is not popular.  Playing it is.

As for soccer?  There's a huge country in the middle of North America where hardly anyone gives a flying leap about it.  So far no one has been able to show where there is any strategy involved in soccer whatsoever.  Even afficionados I've knows tell me that.

 Strategy in soccer? Of course there is! That's like saying there's no strategy in basketball, or no strategy in football. Every team sport involves strategy! I don't know who these "afficionados" are, but they don't know what they're talking about.

As for numbers of participants:

soccer: according to these guys http://www.loc.gov/rr/business/BERA/issue3/soccer.html

"FIFA is currently made up of 205 member associations with over 300,000 clubs and 240 million players from around the world. "

How many more people know how to play soccer? How many more play soccer, but in clubs which are not officially associated with FIFA? Hundreds of millions for sure - but they don't elaborate on this point.

chess:  according to these guys http://www.kenilworthchessclub.org/kenilworthian/2007/02/how-many-chessplayers.html

"605 million people worldwide know how to play chess" and "285 million people play ... via the internet" and "7.5 million are registered players."

So: soccer has 240 million "registered players" while chess has 7.5 million "registered players". Millions more play online, sure, but millions more also play soccer in their backyard, at the park, etc.

I think that these numbers fully answer the question.

 There's a huge country in the middle of North America where hardly anyone gives a flying leap about it.

So what? The USA has 300 million people (a mere 5% of the world's population). The European Union has twice as many people as the USA and they're crazy about soccer. Brazil has 150 million people; Mexico has 80 million; Argentina has 90 million (think about it: Brazil + Mexico + Argentina = a lot more people than USA) - and people down there love soccer! 

The fact remains that practically everyone in the world knows how to play chess, and billions play at their homes between friends regularly.  You have to get a group of people together to play soccer.  You only have to have 2 to play chess.

Soccer takes a team and a 'union' and all sorts of organization to play.  Chess takes a cheap set and two friends.

A VERY small %age of people who play chess ever 'register' with anything or play in any league.  And they play it fromt he time they're 6 well into their 90s.  Not so with soccer.

Again, more people watch someone else play soccer.  More people actually play chess.  Count on it.

I've traveled the world and never played a soccer game, seen very few in progress in parks or city squares.  But for every 1 soccer game, there are 100s of chess games being played.  I've never been anywhere where there weren't people playing chess.

And, even here in Alabama (contrary to what another poster said) well over half the people I know do play chess, just not in any organized fashion.

Some people may claim that there is strategy to soccer, but no one has ever shown me any long term strategy to even one soccer game.

 Do you have a source for this? According to the link I gave: "605 million people worldwide know how to play chess".

If you read the article, it goes on to suggest that this number and also the "285 million play online" statistic are probably inflated. For example, the article states: 

Another writes: "For me 285 millions playing chess on internet is very difficult to believe. Where are they? I use[d] to play in ICC ,yahoo, playchess and probably all together are just 60,000 or less. [ ... ] Sorry but I do not believe these big numbers!" And another: "It is expected that by 2010 there will be a billion computer users... Even assuming there are a billion computer users today, is it possible that 285 million of them, i.e., more than 1 in 4 computer users have played chess on Internet servers? I would be surprised if 28 million people have played chess on the Internet, let alone 285 million. Something is wrong with these numbers."

Chess.com has 200,000 members, not all of whom play chess. Even if yahoo, FICS, ICC, playchess, and other popular chess sites also had 200,000 members (doubtful) and even if each member was unique (i.e., nobody who plays on chess.com also plays on FICS or yahoo, for example) that still wouldn't be anywhere close to 285 million online chess players. (Or 28 million, for that matter).

>>Some people may claim that there is strategy to soccer, but no one has ever shown me any long term strategy to even one soccer game.

Name one physical team sport that has a "long-term strategy", in a way that soccer lacks.

American football has a long term strategy that soccer lacks.  So much for that.

The numbers you have are probably counting every chess game played on line as being new players, giving an inflated number.

However, the number of people so into chess that they play on line or participate in tournaments, or even go to a chess club, represents an extremely small fraction of the people who actually play chess.

Most chess players don't know who the world's champion is, never heard of Lasker or Capablanca or Botwinnik.  They just play chess.  There are probably almost as many people who play chess as who play tic-tac-toe.  It's universal.

And that's why I say that for every 1 game of soccer being played there are 100s, maybe even 1000s of games of chess being played.

Do billions of people watch it on TV?  Of course not.  Billions of people won't watch tic-tac-toe on TV either, but they'll play it.  And people continue playing chess long after they're far too old to be playing soccer.  And people play chess when they're too young to play soccer.

As a participant sport chess is almost as popular as sex.  And that left soccer in its dust long ago.

Maybe a combination of bowling and chess.  Knocking sutff down seems to be something we all enjoyed as kids.

But your own observations only confirm what I was saying about chess:  People may watch soccer and talk about it, but people do play chess.

Throughout Latin America, Asia, parts of Africa, Europe, wherever I've been chess was ubiquitous.  But it's something people would rather do than watch.  And most chess players couldn't tell you who the world's champion is, nor do they care.

Not true. American football involves a series of short-term strategies; so does soccer. There is just as much strategy in soccer as there is in American football.

>>Most chess players don't know who the world's champion is, never heard of Lasker or Capablanca or Botwinnik.  They just play chess.  There are probably almost as many people who play chess as who play tic-tac-toe.  It's universal.

See, the problem here is that you're counting anyone who knows the rules of chess and plays a game occasionally as a "chess player"; whereas you're only counting people who play on an organized team as a "soccer player".

If six-year-old Cousin Billy playing chess against Uncle Bob counts as "people playing chess", then a group of 4 six-year-olds in Africa or South America kicking a soccer ball around counts as "people playing soccer".

I gave you some statistics. Let's recap: 7.5 million people play organized chess, while 240 million people play organized soccer. For the sake of argument, let's be generous and say 20 million people play chess online; how many hundred million kids in Africa and South America kick soccer balls around with their friends but have never played on an organized team? 

Tunatin>> Almost no-one I know plays chess, even unorganised

Exactly! Me too! Back in my high-school days I knew maybe 6 people who played chess, and only 3 of them played more often than 4 games a year. 25 people tried out for the soccer team, though. These days it seems that poker is far, far, far more popular than chess.

lanceuppercut_239, you're wrong about there being no long term strategy in American football.  A good coach will have a game plan he intends to put in effect from the first play and carry through until the final horn sounds.  In many cases it may involve a strategy that only pays off in the final quarter of the game but has been building the entire game.  Granted, there are short term strategies in play throughout a game as well, but an over riding long term strategy will be there if the coach expects to win.

Chess is played on a board of 64 squares with 32 pieces.  Is any game that involves moving objects around an open area to be classified as chess?  If so then checkers is really chess, as are marbles, billiards, backgammon, horseshoes, and stone skipping.

Soccer is played on a field of a standard size by a set number of players, governed by specific rules.  If kids kicking a ball around a yard, governed by whatever rules they make up, is soccer, then checkers is really chess.  Go is really chess.  Primative people playing games with stones were really playing chess.

Sorry but if Uncle Bob and Little Billy are playing chess . . . they're chess players.  That, I'm afraid, is how the term is defined; people who play chess are chess players.  People who move other pieces around an area are not necessarily chess players.  People who kick a ball around are not necessarily soccer players, whether they think they are or not.

Uncle Bob and Little Billy are playing on the same board and by the same rules as are Anand and Kasparov.  Being a fan of real soccer does not mean that you are really playing soccer simply by kicking a ball around.  And not knowing who the world's champion is does not mean someone is not playing chess when they really are playing chess.

again, for every 1 real soccer game that gets played there are 100s, perhaps 1000s, of real chess games being played.  Statistics of organized play probably covers the vast majority of real soccer games that get played but only a very tiny fraction of the real chess games that get played.

very funny Anthony and i agree with u charlie haha

all these activities are for our entertainment and one is better than another only because of the enjoyment we get from it, similar types of activities can be grouped together.
self powered physical > football, baseball, cricket, tennis, cycling, atletics etc
mental ( with luck element ) > bridge, backgammon
mental ( pure ) chess, sudoku
skill > golf, snooker, darts, tiddly-winks
someone mentioned hurling, in my neck of the woods this would be classified as an alcohol related activity ( or more accurately consequence )
auxilliary powered > motor car / motor bike racing

personal preferences participating > chess, cycling and squash ( racquetball )
personal preferences spectating > football, squash and hockey 

and as to the ability to "will" an arrow into the bull rather than a combination of skill and physical laws, i think the bull involved here is at the opposite end to the eye

 So you're saying that professional soccer coaches have no long term game plan? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Good one! The fact that you don't understand the game doesn't mean it lacks strategy.

>>Soccer is played on a field of a standard size by a set number of players, governed by specific rules. <snip>

Sorry but if Uncle Bob and Little Billy are playing chess . . . they're chess players.  That, I'm afraid, is how the term is defined; people who play chess are chess players.

If you're definition of a soccer game is restricted to "a game which is played exactly according to all the official FIFA rules" then we have to define chess as "a game which is played exactly according to all the official FIDE rules."

Do you think Uncle Bob and Little Billy strictly enforce the touch-move rule? Does Uncle Bob let Billy take back some of his moves? Do they use a chess clock? Do they record all their moves in algebraic notation? If any of these are violated, they're not following the official FIDE rules - so they're not playing chess. ("Chess is not skittles" - Gary Kasparov)

On the other hand, if a game where touch-move is not enforced, take-backs are allowed, clocks are not used, and moves are not recorded counts as "a game of chess" - then certainly a group of little kids playing an informal game of 2 vs 2 soccer counts as "a game of soccer". 

Neither the FIDE nor the USCF require the use of a clock.  If the unspoken agreement is that each player has an infinite time in which to move then no clock is needed.  If take-back is allowed then it is more rightfully to be considered a chess lesson thana chess game.  Therefore, when Uncle Bob and Little Billy are playing touch move . . . they're playing a game of chess according to the rules of bothe the FIDE and the USCF.

Moving chess pieces around a board willy-nilly in any form or fashion that comes to mind - even though the 2 people are using a chess board and pieces - is not chess, even if they are demonstrating the same 'skills' used in playing chess.  Kicking a ball around, based on made up rules, even if the participants are demonstrating the same skills used in soccer, is not soccer.  It may be something that resembles soccer, but it is not soccer.  Checkers resembles chess, but it is not chess.

As for long term strategy in soccer:  Fans of the sport tell me there is none.  It's not a conclusion I came to on my own.  In fact, I believe it was you who said that no sport involves long term strategy.  American football does.  If you like I can give specific examples.  So far, no one has offered any examples of long term (lasting the entire game) strategy in soccer.

Nothing wrong with that.  I see no long term strategy in golf and very little in baseball.  That's one reason I've enjoyed playing both but have no desire to watch anyone else play it.