• Welcome to The Cave of Dragonflies forums, where the smallest bugs live alongside the strongest dragons.

    Guests are not able to post messages or even read certain areas of the forums. Now, that's boring, don't you think? Registration, on the other hand, is simple, completely free of charge, and does not require you to give out any personal information at all. As soon as you register, you can take part in some of the happy fun things at the forums such as posting messages, voting in polls, sending private messages to people and being told that this is where we drink tea and eat cod.

    Of course I'm not forcing you to do anything if you don't want to, but seriously, what have you got to lose? Five seconds of your life?

Is Chess a Sport?

Is chess a sport?

  • Yes

    Votes: 10 38.5%
  • No

    Votes: 16 61.5%

  • Total voters
    26
Doesn't (normally...) involve physical exertion, so no, it's not a sport by definition. It doesn't have to be a sport to be competitive.
 
Doesn't (normally...) involve physical exertion, so no, it's not a sport by definition. It doesn't have to be a sport to be competitive.

bear in mind that this is wikipedia, but wikipedia claims that "sport" isn't really well defined and often includes chess and go even though they're primarily mental.

my rationalization is that your brain is a physical part of you ... and you are ... improving that. yes
 
bear in mind that this is wikipedia, but wikipedia claims that "sport" isn't really well defined and often includes chess and go even though they're primarily mental.

my rationalization is that your brain is a physical part of you ... and you are ... improving that. yes

So would competitive Pokémon be a sport?
 
So would competitive Pokémon be a sport?

1) I would probably argue that chess is a much more strategically intensive than Pokémon*, and plus Pokémon has an element of chance/luck that should probably exclude something from being a sport, but

2) hell if enough people want to call it a sport I'm probably not going to try to stop them! :B

*but it does take a lot of strategy and I'm bad at Pokémon

ETA: strategy aside since that could be disputed, I think the element of chance thing is the biggest reason I wouldn't call it a sport
 
1) I would probably argue that chess is a much more strategically intensive than Pokémon*, and plus Pokémon has an element of chance/luck that should probably exclude something from being a sport, but

2) hell if enough people want to call it a sport I'm probably not going to try to stop them! :B

*but it does take a lot of strategy and I'm bad at Pokémon

ETA: strategy aside since that could be disputed, I think the element of chance thing is the biggest reason I wouldn't call it a sport

"has an element of chance" is kind of bogus in consideration of, you know, things that are generally accepted to be sports.
 
Doesn't (normally...) involve physical exertion, so no, it's not a sport by definition. It doesn't have to be a sport to be competitive.
I dunno, shooting game or clay targets is usually considered a sport, and that probably has just as much physical exertion as chess.
 
I dunno, shooting game or clay targets is usually considered a sport, and that probably has just as much physical exertion as chess.

Well, you do have to stand up for ages. And I imagine the rifle isn't that light. But yes. Things like shooting and archery are much more about concentration than physical ability, so if you're accepting that sport can revolve around that, there's no reason to exclude chess.
 
This question is kind of like "Are video games art?": nobody disagrees about the qualities of chess (well, not seriously), only about the definition of the word "sport". If you define "sport" in a way that includes chess, then it is a "sport"; if you define it strictly as involving physical exertion, then it isn't. If there is some interesting concretely defined category you're wondering whether chess fits into, then ask about that; don't just ask whether it's a "sport".
 
I dunno, shooting game or clay targets is usually considered a sport, and that probably has just as much physical exertion as chess.
This is a bit of an exaggeration. Chess doesn't involve dexterity.

Reviewing the Wikipedia page, it mentions "mind sports", which apparently include bridge, chess, go, etc. The fact that different sports societies and institutions say yes and no to non-physical activities doesn't really help. So I guess this all comes down to opinion until there's a more universally accepted definition.

Butterfree said:
This question is kind of like "Are video games art?"

I don't agree with this analogy, but it could be my bias on this question speaking (in that video games are a mixed media artform, and that there is no acceptable reason why films can be art but not video games).
 
lawn bowls? billards? RC car racing? pigeon racing?
I have no idea what these are except billiards, and billiards requires a lot of dexterity. Chess really does not require anything from the physical end apart from actually moving the pieces which anyone can do. The skill part comes entirely from the head.
 
I have no idea what these are except billiards, and billiards requires a lot of dexterity. Chess really does not require anything from the physical end apart from actually moving the pieces which anyone can do. The skill part comes entirely from the head.
lawn bowls requires rolling small balls a few meters across turf and trying to get your ball nearest to a different ball (which literally anyone can do; most of the time you're trying very hard not to roll your ball too far. it's often played by elderly people). RC car racing is... racing remote-controlled cars. Pigeon racing is letting pigeons go in one spot and timing their return to a coop. Also: fishing.

edit: why are you using dexterity as a measure anyway? many sports require little to no fine motor skill, like running.
 
Last edited:
lawn bowls requires rolling small balls a few meters across turf and trying to get your ball nearest to a different ball (which literally anyone can do; most of the time you're trying very hard not to roll your ball too far. it's often played by elderly people)

I thought that was called Bacci? Is it called Lawn Bowls in Australia?
 
I don't agree with this analogy, but it could be my bias on this question speaking (in that video games are a mixed media artform, and that there is no acceptable reason why films can be art but not video games).
Roger Ebert thinks the interactivity of video games makes them not art, because art is a pure expression of the intent of the creator and can't be affected by the viewer, only interpreted. I wouldn't define it that way, but no, by that definition they clearly aren't "art".

Of course, this says nothing real about the merits of video games, just about Roger Ebert's curious definition of "art" - much like the sports question here.
 
Back
Top Bottom