i have not yet seen any chess player on the "pros vs. joes" television show.
To all of those who say chess isn't a sport
Sort:
TMIMITW wrote:
Okolo wrote:
I think Chess is a mental sport, which fits the wider definition of "sport". I think that if the IOC has determined that it is a sport then it arguably is a sport at least within the IOC's definition of the word. They should know, they do it for a living.
It certainly feels like a sport to those who follow the top players and enjoy the game as a spectator. To the spectator, it has all the real-time tension of a football or basketball game. You're rooting for your favorite player like any tennis fan would. The element of Chess as a spectator sport isn't discussed much, but Ithink it also is a factor in people's opinion.
Chess has been a spectator sport for centuries. What other board game has archives of pretty much every known tournament since the 1800's preserved and freely available to all. Chess was meant to be watched by others. People, inspired by the game sought to show others what had transpired.
One may debate about the definition of a sport and whether or not top players are athletes. But for the those that love the game, watching Nakamura win TATA Steel feels no different than watching any professional athlete win their respective tournament. I watched all of the Anand-Topalov World Chess Championship games. Complete with the almost static video of them seated in the playing hall while listening to Chess.com's live commentary, and I felt all the tension and emotion of a Super Bowl game.
So my argument is that Chess feels like a sport, regardless of anyone's definition of the word. I see no point in arguing it because I see nothing wrong with calling it a game or sport or mental sport. . .Whatever. Feels the same no matter what you call it.
So......you make an argument, then state there is no point in arguing it. Well, to your argument regarding the mental aspect, you would then have to include ANY diversion that is mentally taxing. Also, being a spectator has nothing to do with it. If I were to watch my neighbor mow her lawn, it doesn't make mowing grass a sport. No matter how hot she may be.
No physical activity=not a sport
While I love this great game, I really can't believe some would like it to be considered sport.
The reason why I said there isn't a point in arguing it is that I have no vested interest in defining Chess as a sport. Some people seem to be very passioate about the definition of Chess, but I am not. I'm perfectly happy to have it defined simply as a board game. I think of it as a mental sport and I outlined one of my reasons why, but I'm not trying to convince anyone that my opinion is correct. My post was merely about elements of the game that are similar to physical sports, notably the spectator experience. I brought up the spectator aspect because I haven't heard it mentioned much but that's one of the integral parts of Chess that makes it feel like a sport, regardless of it's definition.
Feb 8, 2011
0
#104
Maybe it's a sport in the gymnasium of the mind?
Or, since Karparov, arguably the greatest player ever, called chess "the 64 square jungle", maybe it's all just an elephant hunt?
Or maybe we should take Morphy's more idealistic view:
"As a mere game, a relaxation from the severer pursuits of life, it is deserving of high commendation. It is not only the most delightful and scientific, but the most moral of amusements."
If there are mental sports, then chess could be a sport... it depends on how we define sports. I don't think the question is very interesting or the answer to it very important, but if calling chess a sport will help popularize it, we could plausibly call it that.
I don't think people are going to be bowled over/converted by chess players calling chess a sport.
Well, it could help if it were part of the Olympics or other general sports events.
Hm... tennis was a popular sport before it was included in the Olympics, but still tennis players thought that it could be helpful.
I really dont much care one way or another---but, if stephen Hawking can play it--- it aint a sport.
Puppaz wrote:
I think some people like to classify chess as a "mind-sport" as it is competitive, and apart from the physical side of things it is quite similar in many other respects to activities which fit the more traditional definition of sport being to do with physical skill and ability, in that it is competitive, there are organised competitions, and the ability to play chess well is a skill in which levels of excellence are needed and there is (hopefully) a level of sportsmanship.
Chess is certainly not a traditional style sport, given that the old-accepted definition of sport does involve physical ability. Trying to argue that moving pieces with hands is a bit of a weak argument in my opinion. You may as well say breathing is a sport.
However, the definition of sport has changed over time, activities that are not physically difficult but use other skills are more readily accepted as a sport simply because they are played at a competitive level, which leads to many arguments like the one here, such as is darts a sport, or are beauty contests sport, radio-controlled car racing? etc etc.
As often is the case, I think its mostly due to the evolution of language and what words mean. Language does change over time, despite some hating this and wanting to try to deny it or fight it, it simply does change.
So whether you want to see chess as a sport at the moment really comes down to what you want to see "sport" as. I think the more interesting thing here is why are some people so desperate to class chess as sport, which is a much more complex issue, but much more likely to cause arguments. Given that a simple definition of a word can cause such heated exchanges, I don't think I'll even try to go in to that one here.
I started reading this thread thinking chess was a sport, but also thinking it imposssible to prove. Now I know that chess is a sport, no matter what anyone else says. If darts and RC cars can be sports (and I consider them to be) then chess can too. I think the IOC's definition is very good.
Painterroy wrote:
RDR75 wrote:
Painterroy wrote:
Chess, however is a game, just like Basketball, Hockey, Track and Field, where there is a definite winner or loser. Therefore it should be in the Olympics.
Tic tac toe, however is a game, just like Basketball, Hockey, Track and Field, where there is a definite winner or loser. Therefore it should be in the Olympics.
No, because also Tic Tac Toe, is not a game or sport that requires any skill. Chess does. Basketball does. While chess does not require physical skill (although the professional chess players may tell you that if you are physically fit it will help them succeed) It does require as much mental skill as any physical sport. Is pushing chess pieces any different, than a coach maneuvering players around a field to succeed in plays?
There should be an added stipulation in the OIC's definition that there must not be any forced win, draw, or other similar situation.
EDIT: Instead, an undefined stipulation that it must have some reason for it's inclusion. It should insure both the above and that it tests some aspect (either mental or physical) of the players. Just a rough draft idea. The one above is good already.
Feb 8, 2011
0
#113
" I started reading this thread thinking chess was a sport, but also thinking it imposssible to prove. Now I know that chess is a sport, no matter what anyone else says."
hmmm. . . that doesn't make chess a sport; it makes chess a religion.
Feb 8, 2011
0
#114
It is not a sport if it was a sport people would sweet and smell like sh** when they play but all u need to do is think
look back at my post. I edited it.
Feb 9, 2011
0
#117
pepsifreyja wrote:
It is not a sport if it was a sport people would sweet and smell like sh** when they play but all u need to do is think
Many chess players smell pretty bad anyhow, especially after spending two days in a playing hall drinking coffee and sweating, so I don't think this is a good determinant of whether the activity is sporty or not.
Atos wrote:
Hm... tennis was a popular sport before it was included in the Olympics, but still tennis players thought that it could be helpful.
Yeah, but really the net effect of tennis in the Olympics was to cheapen the latter; it's just another tournament, and not a particularly prestigious one at that (I actually had forgotten Nadal won gold at Beijing!)
Of course, chess at the Olympics is a different matter, and maybe it would be a positive thing. But, I would hazard a guess that the biggest effect of its inclusion would be in generating arguments about matchplay vs tournament formats
theoreticalboy wrote:
Atos wrote:
Hm... tennis was a popular sport before it was included in the Olympics, but still tennis players thought that it could be helpful.
Yeah, but really the net effect of tennis in the Olympics was to cheapen the latter; it's just another tournament, and not a particularly prestigious one at that (I actually had forgotten Nadal won gold at Beijing!)
Well, I tend to agree that including tennis in the Olympics didn't do much for its popularization in countries like the US where it was already popular, but it might have in countries like China. Ten years ago when I was in China and I said that I play tennis, everyone asked "ping pong" ? Now, after the Beijing Olympics, I think most people would at least know what you are talking about.
I think Chess is a mental sport, which fits the wider definition of "sport". I think that if the IOC has determined that it is a sport then it arguably is a sport at least within the IOC's definition of the word. They should know, they do it for a living.
It certainly feels like a sport to those who follow the top players and enjoy the game as a spectator. To the spectator, it has all the real-time tension of a football or basketball game. You're rooting for your favorite player like any tennis fan would. The element of Chess as a spectator sport isn't discussed much, but Ithink it also is a factor in people's opinion.
Chess has been a spectator sport for centuries. What other board game has archives of pretty much every known tournament since the 1800's preserved and freely available to all. Chess was meant to be watched by others. People, inspired by the game sought to show others what had transpired.
One may debate about the definition of a sport and whether or not top players are athletes. But for the those that love the game, watching Nakamura win TATA Steel feels no different than watching any professional athlete win their respective tournament. I watched all of the Anand-Topalov World Chess Championship games. Complete with the almost static video of them seated in the playing hall while listening to Chess.com's live commentary, and I felt all the tension and emotion of a Super Bowl game.
So my argument is that Chess feels like a sport, regardless of anyone's definition of the word. I see no point in arguing it because I see nothing wrong with calling it a game or sport or mental sport. . .Whatever. Feels the same no matter what you call it.
So......you make an argument, then state there is no point in arguing it. Well, to your argument regarding the mental aspect, you would then have to include ANY diversion that is mentally taxing. Also, being a spectator has nothing to do with it. If I were to watch my neighbor mow her lawn, it doesn't make mowing grass a sport. No matter how hot she may be.
No physical activity=not a sport
While I love this great game, I really can't believe some would like it to be considered sport.