Is Chess a Sport? (1 Viewer)

[Sinn Fein]

What about fishing?

 

[Gally]

Gally, the things you are saying are NOT sports might be worse than calling chess a sport

The biggest reason most put up a fight to my definition of sport is that they believe if something is not categorized as a sport it somehow demeans or minimizes the activity.  That is not the case at all.  Track is difficult and has a lot of technical aspects that need to be mastered to maximize your performance.  It is a craft but in the end it is a battle to maximize the individuals physical capabilities.  Your opponent does not directly affect the outcome.  No matter what your opponent does during the event the fastest you can run the 100 m or the 400 or the 1500 or whatever event you are talking about is basically fixed and the opponent doesn't directly affect that.

 

[Gally]

Well, you obviously know absolutely nothing about running, so we have pinpointed that. 

As for video games, there are some out there where physical activity is definitely part of it.  Are these sports?

Do you believe I know nothing about running because you believe I am not taking into account pacing for long distance running or "race strategy"?  I understand the idea of those items but in the end every individual has a max time they physically can do if they run the race they want to race.  The pace, strategy, etc that maximized that individuals performance.  The other's in the race should not have any bearing if the runner sticks to the pace, strategy, etc that works best for them.  Just because someone jumps out early at a fast pace does not require me to do the same.  If my best race is starting slow and kicking at the end and that is the way I achieve my fastest time then that is what I need to do to get my best time.  It doesn't matter if another runner does the opposite. 

Now if you as an individual aren't mentally tough to block out the other runners and you choose to run a race that doesn't maximize your own results that is not your opponent affecting your race. That is you not being disciplined enough to run the race that gives you your best chance at a best time.  You chose to do that tactic.  Your opponent did not force you into that tactic.  . 

 

[Gally]

He is just not recognizing the different types of sports.

There are also a lot of things out there that are not currently recognized as sports but certainly could be if leagues were made. 

So you are saying in order to be a sport there has to be a league?

 

[NewlyRetired]

I also have a further definition of "pure sport", in which not only is there direct competition, but, there is no clock. That elevates baseball, cricket, wrestling, and the like above other sports into the highest level of competition possible. Just you and the opponent, one on one, directly opposed with nothing else affecting you.

I am no expert but I am pretty sure wrestling (high school, college, olympics) has a time limit.

 

[EYLive]

Races aren't sports either.

 

[ghostguy123]

Do you believe I know nothing about running because you believe I am not taking into account pacing for long distance running or "race strategy"?  I understand the idea of those items but in the end every individual has a max time they physically can do if they run the race they want to race.  The pace, strategy, etc that maximized that individuals performance.  The other's in the race should not have any bearing if the runner sticks to the pace, strategy, etc that works best for them.  Just because someone jumps out early at a fast pace does not require me to do the same.  If my best race is starting slow and kicking at the end and that is the way I achieve my fastest time then that is what I need to do to get my best time.  It doesn't matter if another runner does the opposite. 

Now if you as an individual aren't mentally tough to block out the other runners and you choose to run a race that doesn't maximize your own results that is not your opponent affecting your race. That is you not being disciplined enough to run the race that gives you your best chance at a best time.  You chose to do that tactic.  Your opponent did not force you into that tactic.  . 

As I said, you don't know anything about running

 

[Gally]

I wonder why the 4x4 teams routinely use their best/fastest runner as the anchor.  Weird.  According to some here it doesnt matter.........yet for the people involved it does.  Odd

The winner is the team with the fastest time.  You add up all the times for each leg.  Placing your fastest runner as the anchor is one way to go.  I would think you would want to maximize each leg by placing your best start guy first, best curve guy (regardless if he is the pure fastest runner) at leg 2 & 3 and your best guy from a moving start for straight away speed last.  I would think this would maximize your time.  Again, the other teams have zero affect on how fast you four can run the race. 

 

[Gally]

As I said, you don't know anything about running

Please enlighten me.  I would like to learn. 

 

[ghostguy123]

So you are saying in order to be a sport there has to be a league?

Not necessarily, but it would go a long way as to getting said event recognized as a sport.

 

[ghostguy123]

Please enlighten me.  I would like to learn. 

Go as a competitive distance runner, such as a 2 miler in track or a cross country runner.

They will be happy to enlighten you.

 

[ghostguy123]

Still not sure why people are focusing at all on the 100m dash.  The 100 is not a sport.  The 100 is one event in the sport of "Track & Field". 

Is field goal kicking a sport? Is stealing a base a sport?

Based on a lot of these latest definitions at actually appears that pool is a sport while the likes of track, cross country, and golf are not.  Correct?

 

[munga30]

Pool is a game.  Hth. 

 

[ghostguy123]

Pool is a game.  Hth. 

Well, yeah. 

Is there an actual definition of what a sport is out there anywhere?  Something concrete?

If not, then I guess the answer is a poll. If 75% say yes, then it's a sport???

 

[Gally]

Well, yeah. 

Is there an actual definition of what a sport is out there anywhere?  Something concrete?

If not, then I guess the answer is a poll. If 75% say yes, then it's a sport???

Go back to my original post.  I defined what a "sport" is to me.  You don't have to agree with the definition and could craft your own but you haven't done that. 

 

[Gally]

Go as a competitive distance runner, such as a 2 miler in track or a cross country runner.

They will be happy to enlighten you.

Maybe they aren't mentally tough to run their own race.  Again, that has nothing to do with their opponent and everything to do with themselves.  You are the one saying the opponents specifically affect each other so I am asking you to explain.  I can't defend my stance without you explaining what I am missing.

 

[ghostguy123]

Maybe they aren't mentally tough to run their own race.  Again, that has nothing to do with their opponent and everything to do with themselves.  You are the one saying the opponents specifically affect each other so I am asking you to explain.  I can't defend my stance without you explaining what I am missing.

Ask someone in the sport.  I  have asked them the same question you are asking, and they are able to give excellent answers that will enlighten you. 

 

[Mr. Mojo]

I don't even think that Golf is a sport. Chess? Really?

 

[Gally]

But, it actually "IS" a sport.  You do realize this right?

I realize that many people categorize it as a sport.  But when put into the definition I outlined for a sport they don't fit that definition. 

 

[ghostguy123]

Go back to my original post.  I defined what a "sport" is to me.  You don't have to agree with the definition and could craft your own but you haven't done that. 

I don't care what a sport is to YOU.  I don't care what a sport is to any one individual person.

There has to be a better way to define what is a sport and what is not than your personal opinion or my personal opinion of what should be a sport.

 

[ghostguy123]

I realize that many people categorize it as a sport.  But when put into the definition I outlined for a sport they don't fit that definition. 

I guess you need to realize that in the grand scheme of things your definition is irrelevant.

 

[Gally]

Ask someone in the sport.  I  have asked them the same question you are asking, and they are able to give excellent answers that will enlighten you. 

I have too and they always go to the mental aspect of the other runner taking them out of "their race".  My contention is that if they mentally stayed on course to the race strategy that maximizes their skills they would maximize their time regardless of what the other runners are doing.  Just because they chose not to stay within the strategy that works best for their skills doesn't mean the other runner's forced them not to do that.  That is their mental makeup that caused them not to stick with what works best for them.

 

[Gally]

I guess you need to realize that in the grand scheme of things your definition is irrelevant.

The question that was posed was "Is Chess a sport".   There was no definition given.  So, in order to answer that I had to come up with a definition of a sport.  I did that.  Based on my definition I deemed that Chess was not a sport and answered accordingly.  So in the grand scheme of things (nobody else gave a detailed definition to "sport") my definition is relevant because it was the only one listed in this thread.  

 

[ghostguy123]

I have too and they always go to the mental aspect of the other runner taking them out of "their race".  My contention is that if they mentally stayed on course to the race strategy that maximizes their skills they would maximize their time regardless of what the other runners are doing.  Just because they chose not to stay within the strategy that works best for their skills doesn't mean the other runner's forced them not to do that.  That is their mental makeup that caused them not to stick with what works best for them.

I'll jsut give you one example on this and then be done with it since you are clearly schticking it up.

In some races a large group starts at the starting line, elbows flying everywhere, occasionally runners are tripped by other runners and hit the ground.  A few hundred meters up the way is a narrow trail.   Do you start out faster than you normally would and beat them to it?  Do you lag back a little so there is no stoppage?  The answer for each runner depends on how the race is going, as in, what the other runners are doing.

This one small example fits your description of a sport for cross country, and can easily also fit for the 800, 1600, and 3200 in track. 

 

[ghostguy123]

The question that was posed was "Is Chess a sport".  In order to answer that you have to come up with a definition of a sport.  I did that.  Based on my definition I deemed that Chess was not a sport and answered accordingly.  So in the grand scheme of things (nobody else gave a definition to "sport") my definition is relevant because it was the only one listed in this thread.  

"Grand scheme of things" clearly does not mean what you think it means. 

 

[ghostguy123]

And your definition wasn't all that "detailed" as you say it was.  It was 3 short sentences.  Yay

 

[Galileo]

I took a course in college called Anthropology of Sports.  It examined the idea of sport from both cultural and historical perspectives.  At the foundation of this course was the question of "what is a sport".  I got an A, but unfortunately, I was too stoned then to remember the answer now.

 

[ghostguy123]

As for chess, it is not a sport because:

1- it is not recognized by more than maybe a few people as being a sport

2- It can be played at a high level by someone with no arms, legs, hearing, sense of touch, one eye, and no ability to speak.

3- It requires no physical ability other than basic communication to have someone move a piece for you, or the most basic of physical abilities to be able to move the pieces yourself. 

As I said before, an actual detailed definition of what constitutes a sport would be rather lengthy and take many hours to construct.

Track and Field is a sport because(and not limited to):

1- It take immense physical ability and preparation

2- It is highly competitive

3- It is recognized by the vast majority of the population as being a sport

It's probably just easier to ask me if I think something is a sport or not, and I can give reasons.  I am not gonna sit here and write a 100 page rule book for what I think is a sport and what isn't. 

 

[Gally]

I'll jsut give you one example on this and then be done with it since you are clearly schticking it up.

In some races a large group starts at the starting line, elbows flying everywhere, occasionally runners are tripped by other runners and hit the ground.  A few hundred meters up the way is a narrow trail.   Do you start out faster than you normally would and beat them to it?  Do you lag back a little so there is no stoppage?  The answer for each runner depends on how the race is going, as in, what the other runners are doing.

This one small example fits your description of a sport for cross country, and can easily also fit for the 800, 1600, and 3200 in track. 

I was not schticking it up as you said.  I like the idea of discussing different sides of things.  This was a fun back and forth.  As you said, this was my definition based on the thread question.  I like getting different perspectives and views and making arguments for or against.   The definition of sport is always a fun topic because most people have a negative connotation for things not deemed "sports".  

I can agree that in cross country there is terrain and other obstacles that can lead towards shielding or prohibiting your competitors from just running the way they want.  It could creep into my definition of sport.......All in good fun. 

 

[ghostguy123]

There is no "could" about it.  It does. That is a fact.

The dumb part of this is saying just because you don't think it should be a sport then it's magically not a sport.

Track and Field is a sport.  Golf is a sport.  These are sports, regardless of whether you think they are or not.  Maybe you don't think they should be.  Well, that doesn't matter. 

 

[Gally]

As for chess, it is not a sport because:

1- it is not recognized by more than maybe a few people as being a sport

2- It can be played at a high level by someone with no arms, legs, hearing, sense of touch, one eye, and no ability to speak.

3- It requires no physical ability other than basic communication to have someone move a piece for you, or the most basic of physical abilities to be able to move the pieces yourself. 

As I said before, an actual detailed definition of what constitutes a sport would be rather lengthy and take many hours to construct.

Track and Field is a sport because(and not limited to):

1- It take immense physical ability and preparation

2- It is highly competitive

3- It is recognized by the vast majority of the population as being a sport

It's probably just easier to ask me if I think something is a sport or not, and I can give reasons.  I am not gonna sit here and write a 100 page rule book for what I think is a sport and what isn't. 

I am not sure that this helps define "sport".   I understand the purpose and connotation but it isn't a definition...Just because the majority of people believe something doesn't make it so.  The majority of people recognized the earth to be flat at one time.  That does not make it so.

 

[ghostguy123]

"Why is the sky dark at night"

I have literally never pondered that question.  Wow. 

Seems the simple/lazy answer for me would be that there isn't enough "stuff" out there for light to reflect off of, which might be pretty much the same thing you said. 

 

[Galileo]

I agree with Gally, and have posted the same on here previously. If there's no defense, it's not a sport, it's an athletic exhibition. Golf is not a sport.

If there sole method of scoring is via judging, it's not a sport, it's an athletic exhibition. Figure skating and diving are not sports.

Football is a sport, soccer is a sport. The points are awarded directly by accomplishment, not by judging, and you are in direct competition against your opponent.

I also have a further definition of "pure sport", in which not only is there direct competition, but, there is no clock. That elevates baseball, cricket, wrestling, and the like above other sports into the highest level of competition possible. Just you and the opponent, one on one, directly opposed with nothing else affecting you.

Chess fits none of these.

Tonya Harding?

 

[Gally]

There is no "could" about it.  It does. That is a fact.

The dumb part of this is saying just because you don't think it should be a sport then it's magically not a sport.

Track and Field is a sport.  Golf is a sport.  These are sports, regardless of whether you think they are or not.  Maybe you don't think they should be.  Well, that doesn't matter. 

Understood.  These meet your definition of sport (and many others as well).  They just don't meet my definition. 

 

[ghostguy123]

I am not sure that this helps define "sport".   I understand the purpose and connotation but it isn't a definition...Just because the majority of people believe something doesn't make it so.  The majority of people recognized the earth to be flat at one time.  That does not make it so.

I have no idea how you are comparing that to how people used to think the earth was flat.  It's not the same conversation

 

[ghostguy123]

Understood.  These meet your definition of sport (and many others as well).  They just don't meet my definition. 

So is billiards a sport then?  Your 3 laws point to yes

 

[Gally]

I have no idea how you are comparing that to how people used to think the earth was flat.  It's not the same conversation

You stated that these are sports because the majority of people think they are sports.   I am giving an example of a situation where the majority of people believed something to be true when in fact it wasn't true.   It is relevant when you are using what the majority of people think to help define what a sport is. 

 

[Gally]

So is billiards a sport then?  Your 3 laws point to yes

No.  No physical exertion. 

 

[CletiusMaximus]

I am not sure that this helps define "sport".   I understand the purpose and connotation but it isn't a definition...Just because the majority of people believe something doesn't make it so.  The majority of people recognized the earth to be flat at one time.  That does not make it so.

Additionally, it violates the fundamental rule that a definition can't contain the word being defined. So if one says a sport is something "recognized by the vast majority of the population as being a sport", that statement is circular and meaningless.

 

[ghostguy123]

You stated that these are sports because the majority of people think they are sports.   I am giving an example of a situation where the majority of people believed something to be true when in fact it wasn't true.   It is relevant when you are using what the majority of people think to help define what a sport is. 

If we polled the country and almost nobody thought football was a sport, well guess what, football isn't a sport then. 

If we polled the country and 99% of people thought the world was flat, well guess what, the world is still not flat. 

 

[El Floppo]

What makes running 100 meters as fast as you can a sport?  Most of the activities that don't fall into my "sport" category are similar to the 100 meter.  It's just an activity and you don't really have a true competitor.  In order to be a sport you have to have a competitor.

sounds like somebody who never ran a race.

every race that involves other runners/bicyclists/swimmers/etc... absolutely involves those other competitors in your approach to how you race. seems silly to even have to say that.... which means I've been fished. dammit. you got me.

 

[ghostguy123]

Additionally, it violates the fundamental rule that a definition can't contain the word being defined. So if one says a sport is something "recognized by the vast majority of the population as being a sport", that statement is circular and meaningless.

Not true since the answer for THIS PURPOSE can change based on the views of the masses. 

Each game/event would have to be evaluated individually.

If some 10,000 page rule book came out stating what a "sport" is, then people could just start making things up, and they would have to be called sports even though nobody has every heard of it other than the person who created it??

If someone creates a game that fits all the right criteria, but nobody likes it or every plays it, then it's still not a sport.

 

[Gally]

Not true since the answer for THIS PURPOSE can change based on the views of the masses. 

Each game/event would have to be evaluated individually.

If some 10,000 page rule book came out stating what a "sport" is, then people could just start making things up, and they would have to be called sports even though nobody has every heard of it other than the person who created it??

If someone creates a game that fits all the right criteria, but nobody likes it or every plays it, then it's still not a sport.

Why do people have to like a game or play it for it to be a sport?  That really has nothing to do with something being defined as a sport.  It may be a really terrible sport but if the rules of the activity met the definition of a sport it would be a sport whether or not anybody played it or not.

 

[ghostguy123]

By nobody I mean nobody, except maybe the one person who invented it.  Not a sport no matter what that guy is doing.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Not true since the answer for THIS PURPOSE can change based on the views of the masses. 

Each game/event would have to be evaluated individually.

If some 10,000 page rule book came out stating what a "sport" is, then people could just start making things up, and they would have to be called sports even though nobody has every heard of it other than the person who created it??

If someone creates a game that fits all the right criteria, but nobody likes it or every plays it, then it's still not a sport.

I suppose if someone wants to create a definition based on public perception or a public poll of some sort, that technically works, but it strikes me as a crappy definition because of the inherent problem that everyone would be free to use their own definition of the term, so you'd really have meaningless results. Whether something is a sport or not really depends on how one defines sport, so that's your starting point if you want a meaningful answer.

I played hundreds of hours of roofball when I was a kid. It was a game invented by my neighbor and could only be played in one place on earth - in his driveway - because the rules and scoring system were governed by the different roof levels on his house and garage. Probably no one other than a dozen or so kids - my childhood friends - in the entire history of civilization, recognize roofball as a sport, but I would argue to my last breath that roofball is a sport.

 

[EYLive]

I don't care what a sport is to YOU.  I don't care what a sport is to any one individual person.

There has to be a better way to define what is a sport and what is not than your personal opinion or my personal opinion of what should be a sport.

Not really. Why do you think that? We can all have our own criteria. It's not life or death.

For example, I don't think any competition that requires one or more judges to determine scores and a victor be a sport. I really don't care if anyone agrees or not.

 

[EYLive]

Why do people have to like a game or play it for it to be a sport?  That really has nothing to do with something being defined as a sport.  It may be a really terrible sport but if the rules of the activity met the definition of a sport it would be a sport whether or not anybody played it or not.

I agree. Popularity doesn't determine it's classification. Basketball played with a toaster doesn't make it any less a (stupid) sport.

 

[Galileo]

I suppose if someone wants to create a definition based on public perception or a public poll of some sort, that technically works, but it strikes me as a crappy definition because of the inherent problem that everyone would be free to use their own definition of the term, so you'd really have meaningless results. Whether something is a sport or not really depends on how one defines sport, so that's your starting point if you want a meaningful answer.

I played hundreds of hours of roofball when I was a kid. It was a game invented by my neighbor and could only be played in one place on earth - in his driveway - because the rules and scoring system were governed by the different roof levels on his house and garage. Probably no one other than a dozen or so kids - my childhood friends - in the entire history of civilization, recognize roofball as a sport, but I would argue to my last breath that roofball is a sport.

Jay Coakley (sports sociologist/author) includes the notion that sport is an "institutionalized competitive physical activity" in his description of what a sport is.  This type of definition would eliminate roofball from consideration.

 

[ghostguy123]

I suppose if someone wants to create a definition based on public perception or a public poll of some sort, that technically works, but it strikes me as a crappy definition because of the inherent problem that everyone would be free to use their own definition of the term, so you'd really have meaningless results. Whether something is a sport or not really depends on how one defines sport, so that's your starting point if you want a meaningful answer.

That is why I think PART of the definition of sport would have to do with how many people actually consider it to be a sport. 

 

[ghostguy123]

I agree. Popularity doesn't determine it's classification. Basketball played with a toaster doesn't make it any less a (stupid) sport.

Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeazeeeee.  There isn't even an agreed upon rule book for Toasterball yet.  Not a sport.................yet