post moved to ~games.tabletop ;) I get why chess people want chess to be a sport because money, but I'm afraid I'm on the side that says any game which can be played just as well remotely - even...
I get why chess people want chess to be a sport because money, but I'm afraid I'm on the side that says any game which can be played just as well remotely - even by post in some cases - is not really a sport. The whole physical skill thing does matter. I may be wrong but I can't think of any sport which doesn't have some element of physical skill. Chess has the mental side of things sewn up, and nobody is doubting that using one's brain requires calories and leaves you tired but that's not quite the same thing as physical skill.
The issue isn't really whether chess is a sport or not, it's how high level gamers and athletes are funded. If being a sport makes playing elite chess easier for top players then obviously they'll want to try to define it as a sport. Because that's easier than trying to change the funding system to incorporate games as well as sports. I suspect chess is a relatively singular case because it's one of the few games played at a very high level worldwide.
I really don't see chess ever making it into the Olympics though. I'm not saying I'm particularly against the idea because it's a good, highly skilled game - but I can't see it being popular at all. The IOC tend to like rather more... fast and entertaining events, like skateboarding and breakdancing.
I'm always interested where people draw the line between "sport" and "not a sport" in discussions like these. It reminds me of discussions between what is and isn't "art". Your line being "any...
I'm always interested where people draw the line between "sport" and "not a sport" in discussions like these. It reminds me of discussions between what is and isn't "art". Your line being "any game which can be played just as well remotely" is not a sport. I've personally never seen this argument before, so I'd like to unpack just what this delimiter includes and excludes. First of all, you'd be excluding every single sport that is not directly played against an opponent. That means any time or score based sport would not count. If we just look at Olympic sports alone, we're now saying that archery, gymnastics, swimming, breakdancing, canoe/kayak, diving, figure skating, shooting, most ski events, trampoline, and most track and field events would all not count as sports because they could all be done remotely on separate tracks, courses, etc. Even more Olympic sports could be played remotely if we got a little creative.
Now let's take a look at your second criteria, which is one of the most common arguments: physical skill. I would be interested to know where you draw the line between something involving physical skill and something not. Moving chess pieces across a board is not physical skill, apparently, but is shooting? Is darts? Is poker? Is archery? If you don't break a sweat, does that matter? Do esports count? Do VR esports count? And frankly, this whole argument reeks of ableism. If someone isn't able to perform a satisfactory level of physical skill does that invalidate certain paralympic sports? Some paralympic sports have a sighted person on teams of blind athletes. Is that person not playing a sport because they are only using their eyes and speech to play?
This isn't about funding, it's about chess being seen as a serious competition. There's a big difference between calling one's self a "professional athlete" and a "professional chess (or poker, or fighting game) player". It's about being seen as a legitimate pastime in the eyes of the world. Let's not pretend that skateboarding being added to the Olympics, for example didn't give the sport a lot of legitimacy in the eyes of the public.
I suspect chess is a relatively singular case because it's one of the few games played at a very high level worldwide.
I would advise you to look at viewer counts and player counts of many of the most popular esports. League of Legends, Smash Bros, even Fortnite bring massive viewer counts for competition at the highest level. And poker championships draw big views as well.
I can't see it being popular at all.
More people have heard of Chess than a lot of Olympic sports, like curling, skeleton, nordic combined, or trampoline. I was just watching the Paralympics the other day and I was introduced to goalball: a sport I hadn't even heard of. So I don't think popularity really matters here, especially because trampoline was added relatively recently.
The IOC tend to like rather more... fast and entertaining events
I wouldn't call equestrian, golf, shooting, archery, or curling particularly "fast".
And just because you don't find something entertaining doesn't mean no one can.
I wouldn't though, because you have to be present to do the thing. You don't have to be present at a chess board to play chess, you can literally play by mail. There is zero physical skill...
First of all, you'd be excluding every single sport that is not directly played against an opponent.
I wouldn't though, because you have to be present to do the thing. You don't have to be present at a chess board to play chess, you can literally play by mail. There is zero physical skill involved is the point, that's what I was illustrating with the remote point (read my other comments on this post).
You do have to be present to hold your bow, do a backflip, swim, dance, whatever. Chess doesn't require any physical interaction. Sports do. Players can be remote from each other, but no sports I know of can be played without the physical presence of the person doing the thing. You can run a trampolineing contest at different locations for different athletes but everyone has to bounce.
Moving chess pieces across a board is not physical skill, apparently, but is shooting? Is darts? Is poker? Is archery? If you don't break a sweat, does that matter? Do esports count? Do VR esports count?
Honestly, if you're trying to argue that moving a chess piece requires physical skill then we're never going to agree. Also if you think shooting doesn't require physical skill then I hope we never meet on a shooting range, or in a pub with a dartboard!
I don't think poker is a sport either, frankly. It's a hell of a good game though.
Esports count, because they require physical skill. You need accuracy and timing and all that jazz. Try playing League while standing on the other side of the room and shouting your moves to someone. You can do that with chess, because chess doesn't require any physical skill.
And frankly, this whole argument reeks of ableism. If someone isn't able to perform a satisfactory level of physical skill does that invalidate certain paralympic sports?
Absolutely not. I apologise if I somehow implied that paratheletes weren't actual athletes because that wasn't my intention at all. There is no required level of physical skill to engage in sports - although many paratheletes are mad skilled. I'm shit at football but that doesn't make me any less of a sportsperson for that. But some physical skill is required - I can't stand on the sidelines and yell "kick it that way" to someone else and claim to be playing football. One can do that in chess. It might be odd and it might not be allowed in some rulesets but it's still theoretically possible to never touch a piece and still play chess.
Some people might read the insistence that chess is a sport as being a bit insulting to everyone who has spent time learning and honing a physical skill to perform their sport. I'm not sure I think that, personally, but it's not an invalid position.
This isn't about funding, it's about chess being seen as a serious competition.
Quite a lot of the article linked was about money and access to support, and how that would be easier if chess was a sport. But outside of that issue, I'm not sure many people don't see chess as serious. I've always known it as a very serious and cerebral game and I don't think I'm unusual in that. If you're prepared to accept people take competitive LoL seriously, I'm not sure why you'd think people don't take one of the oldest and most skill-intense games seriously.
I would advise you to look at viewer counts and player counts of many of the most popular esports.
Sure, but they're sports. ;)
More to the point, they're also much more fun to watch than chess which, let's be honest, is just two people mostly sitting still. If you don't know the game pretty well, it's not exciting. Even if you do, it's still long and slow (and bear in mind I'm a fan of Test cricket which is largely almost nothing happening for five solid days). But anyway, that's just my opinion on whether chess would be popular, it doesn't really change the widely accepted definition of a sport, one aspect of which is that it requires physical skill.
Being a game doesn't diminish chess in any way. Lots of games are perfectly serious, and should be taken seriously. But if chess is a sport then by the same definition so is Monopoly and that's pretty silly, isn't it?
I think your post is needlessly aggressive. Ignoring that, I still think you’re being obtuse. There is no room for skill discrepancy in moving a chess piece. Sure, it will pose different levels of...
I think your post is needlessly aggressive.
Ignoring that, I still think you’re being obtuse. There is no room for skill discrepancy in moving a chess piece.
Sure, it will pose different levels of difficulty for variously abled people but the move itself is binary in outcome — did you move the piece to the right square? It doesn’t even matter if it takes you 10 minutes compared to someone who can can do it in 1 second — the outcome is the same. Your ability has no outcome on the game beyond potentially requiring you to get someone to move the pieces for you.
I genuinely cannot understand how you think that's what I'm doing. Moving something is not a physical skill. It requires some physical capability, but that's not the same thing. The key point I've...
I can't believe you're claiming that you're not being ableist here.
I genuinely cannot understand how you think that's what I'm doing. Moving something is not a physical skill. It requires some physical capability, but that's not the same thing.
The key point I've tried to make again and again and again is that you don't even need that very basic physical capacity to play chess. If you are incapable of physical motion to the degree of, say, Stephen Hawking - you can still play chess (and Hawking did). You do not need to be able to move a piece to play chess. You need only communicate what you want moving, you opponent can move the piece. Chess requires absolutely zero physical skill and a physical capacity of only communication. Which is of course one of the great things about the game, it's accessible to almost anyone. That's absolutely fucking brilliant and there's not a lot of things that accessible. But it's also why it's not a sport.
It's frankly horrible to dictate what does and does not require physical skill based on your own physical ability.
Careful not to make too many assumptions here. I'm physically disabled myself. I can't participate in most sports, even if I wanted to (and I really, really, really want to, in particular I miss squash so much it almost moves me to tears sometimes). I used to play quite a lot of them (not football, was always shit at football). Not any more. Don't sweat it, I'm not offended. Yet. But please, do keep calling me ableist and we'll see how that goes, eh?
I can play chess though...
Just because moving a piece across a board doesn't require any skill for you to do doesn't mean that others might not struggle with it
Physical capacity is not the same thing as skill, and to try equate the two just to make me look like a twat is somewhat disingenuous. There is no skill in moving a chess piece. That doesn't mean everyone can do it and I never said everyone can. I've said many times now that being able to move the pieces doesn't even matter.
And here you give the game away. You don't want chess to be seen as a sport because you don't like it personally.
Um, what? I didn't say I don't like chess. A chess match is two people mostly sitting still. That's just a fact. I've never seen a chess match - either on TV (couple of times, back in the 80s, chess was on TV), the internet or in person (and yes, I've bothered to go and watch it played competitively in person) - which isn't that, except those one-on-many exhibition matches which are lots of people sitting still and one person walking around. Am I wrong? It's been a good few years for me, has chess changed to the point where the players dance around between moves and cheerleaders perform on the sidelines? I suspect not.
I don't think I actually expressed an opinion about chess as a game, but let's clear that up quickly - I think it's a good game. It's a bit simple for my tastes at the moment, but I've played it plenty. I was in my school chess club. I played at university before getting into Go. Just to be really super extra clear I don't think chess is a simple game by any means, but it has relatively simple rules and I currently enjoy games which are a little more... complicated and weird and increasingly, co-operative rather than competitive. That's just a personal preference but I still enjoy a game of chess every so often.
Could you maybe try to read my comments in somewhat better faith? We might disagree about one thing - the definition of a sport - but to read so much of what I've written as some kind of attack on chess and disabled people and so on feels somewhat unfair and aggressive, especially when I've been taking time to be as clear as I can in what I have said and also what I very deliberately haven't said.
Just because you don't find it entertaining doesn't mean no one could. Also, you say that esports count as sports, but are they not also two people mostly sitting still? I fail to see the difference between the two in that case.
I never claimed that my opinion matters on whether chess is entertaining or not, but be honest, do you really, seriously think the crowds of people who go to football matches or watch tennis would sit through a chess match? If chess was going to be a stadium filler it would have already happened. It's never going to be a huge spectator thing. That's fine. Millions of people play and enjoy it.
On esports - I'm not sure if you've ever seen a big match but while you are right that the players are sitting mostly still at screens - nobody is watching the players, they're watching the actual match on the big screens. Matches are shorter. Faster. Louder. More colourful. You must know, really, that's just more entertaining for a lot of people than chess. I watch Test cricket and I also watch snooker sometimes - but I'd never for a second try to claim they were exciting and entertaining in the same way as skateboarding or basketball.
No, it's not. If Monopoly was played at a competitive level, I see no reason why it shouldn't be a sport.
Well, it is played competitively. And it's not a sport because it involves no physical skill. Just like poetry isn't a sport (are you ready to call poetry a sport too? it has a competitive version..)
Almost every definition of "sport" that I can find - certainly all the major dictionaries - includes a requirement for some quantity of physical skill. Monopoly, like chess, is a game. There is nothing wrong with games. Games can be complex and cerebral and serious, I would say many of them much more so than many sports. Sport isn't that big a deal. It's just sport. But it does have a widely accepted definition, and that definition excludes chess. Sorry, clearly you're upset about that. But y'know. It's not my definition. I'm not 'gatekeeping' sport here. The gate you're running into is the one the majority of the world uses and when it comes to definitions, the majority always wins.
My question to you is why do you feel so incredibly strongly that the game you like has to be a sport? So strongly that you're prepared to try to change one of the core definitions of sport just to include it?
Playing remotely isn't the same thing as playing by yourself. I would take playing remotely to mean the kind of "remote" we've grown to accommodate in this pandemic - something that can be done,...
First of all, you'd be excluding every single sport that is not directly played against an opponent.
Playing remotely isn't the same thing as playing by yourself. I would take playing remotely to mean the kind of "remote" we've grown to accommodate in this pandemic - something that can be done, sedentary, laying down in the bed or at the kitchen table.
Moving chess pieces across a board is not physical skill, apparently, but is shooting? Is darts? Is poker? Is archery? If you don't break a sweat, does that matter? Do esports count? Do VR esports count?
Yes, yes, yes, no, yes. No - though that's more up for debate. Yes, with caveats. Yes.
Come on, moving chess pieces across a board is not physical skill by any reasonable definition.
And frankly, this whole argument reeks of ableism. If someone isn't able to perform a satisfactory level of physical skill does that invalidate certain paralympic sports? Some paralympic sports have a sighted person on teams of blind athletes. Is that person not playing a sport because they are only using their eyes and speech to play?
I think that if you try to frame a discussion about what constitutes sports in the context of ableism you're going to run into some problems. But regardless, I can't think of any Paralympic game that requires anywhere as little physical skill and effort as chess.
I don't think a sighted guide standing sedentary on the sidelines is playing the sport. I was under the impression most actively compete alongside a blind athlete though? Either way, they're a team.
It's about being seen as a legitimate pastime in the eyes of the world.
That chess being considered a sport would give the game more "legitimacy" is undoubtedly true, but that's a pretty shoddy reason to rely on, no? The same could be true for, say, competitive Categories.
So I don't think popularity really matters here, especially because trampoline was added relatively recently.
Popular within the structure and framework of the Olympic games.
And just because you haven't heard of a sport doesn't mean no one else has ;-)
There may have been specific exceptions due to covid, but AFAIK FIDE only recognizes over the table matches for its official rating and competitions, including the World Chess Championship and the...
There may have been specific exceptions due to covid, but AFAIK FIDE only recognizes over the table matches for its official rating and competitions, including the World Chess Championship and the Candidates Tournament (which defines the challenger to the title).
It is possible to play chess online, of course. It is also possible for someone to play soccer with their neighboors in the field nearby their house.... FIFA doesn't care about it in the slightest, and that doesn't make soccer less of a sport.
Correspondence chess is ruled by the International Correspondence Chess Federation and is considered distinct.
The argument for chess as a sport is generally for OTB chess only.
Whether postal chess is or isn't allowed in competition wasn't really what I was getting at. My point was more that chess can be played by post, because it has no physical skill (or even...
Whether postal chess is or isn't allowed in competition wasn't really what I was getting at. My point was more that chess can be played by post, because it has no physical skill (or even presence!) requirement. Cricket, on the other hand, is more of an in-person event. Snowboarding by email isn't a thing. Etc.
I can't think of a sport which doesn't require physical presence. Esports don't require all players to be in the same location, but they still have to be physically present at their computer. Regardless of the rules of various competitions, a chess game doesn't require either player to be at the board or ever touch a piece.
When it comes to high-level competitions with huge rewards, I would say that preventing cheating to any acceptable degree is very much something that can only happen in person. Due to the...
When it comes to high-level competitions with huge rewards, I would say that preventing cheating to any acceptable degree is very much something that can only happen in person.
Due to the impossibility of preventing cheating, Correspondence Chess currently expressly allows the use of chess engines. I wonder if it has become a competition to determine who's got the best computer.
I fear I may not be making my point very clearly. Forget the postal thing. Focus on the physical skill bit. In competition, both players could stand several metres from the board and shout their...
I fear I may not be making my point very clearly. Forget the postal thing. Focus on the physical skill bit.
In competition, both players could stand several metres from the board and shout their moves to someone else who moves for them. No cheating, but still no physical presence at the board. There is zero physical skill in chess. For that reason I don't think it can be called a sport.
Additional to that, if you let chess be a sport then by the same definition you also have to let huge amounts of other board games be a sport as well. I do not go to my friends' houses for sports nights.
Sure, if the need to demonstrate physical prowesss of any kind is a necessary criteria for what makes a sport, than chess could hardly qualify. However, not everyone agrees with that criteria....
Sure, if the need to demonstrate physical prowesss of any kind is a necessary criteria for what makes a sport, than chess could hardly qualify. However, not everyone agrees with that criteria. That wasn't a problem for the International Olympic Committee, for example. One can disagree, of course.
In any case, this article does a good job demonstrating some of the physical aspects of chess.
A quick google suggests that it's very common to define a sport as requiring physical skill. All the major dictionaries do, for a start. I think if you're not including that requirement then...
A quick google suggests that it's very common to define a sport as requiring physical skill. All the major dictionaries do, for a start. I think if you're not including that requirement then you're really stretching the definition for reasons other than coming up with a reasonable and consistent definition, as I said in my first comment. And while I am sympathetic to those reasons, I don't think wanting something to be a sport because it makes the players lives easier is enough. Because by yours and the IOC's definition, now Monopoly is a sport as well and that's kinda silly.
physical aspects of chess.
Physical exertion is not the same thing as physical skill.
Oh yes, you didn't even need to google that, to be honest, your view is very much the most overwhelmingly popular and agreed upon. But not everything that is universally agreed upon must...
Oh yes, you didn't even need to google that, to be honest, your view is very much the most overwhelmingly popular and agreed upon.
But not everything that is universally agreed upon must necessarily remain so, right? Hence the articles, discussions, etc ;)
Oh yeah, for sure! I don't know how they split the thing, but imagine a chess in which any draw will be solved by a boxing round? We would have EXTREMELY aggresive chess and even draws would be...
Oh yeah, for sure!
I don't know how they split the thing, but imagine a chess in which any draw will be solved by a boxing round? We would have EXTREMELY aggresive chess and even draws would be entertaining for everyone! I wanna see Ian Nepomniachtchi beat the shit out of Magnus Carlsen! :P
post moved to ~games.tabletop ;)
I get why chess people want chess to be a sport because money, but I'm afraid I'm on the side that says any game which can be played just as well remotely - even by post in some cases - is not really a sport. The whole physical skill thing does matter. I may be wrong but I can't think of any sport which doesn't have some element of physical skill. Chess has the mental side of things sewn up, and nobody is doubting that using one's brain requires calories and leaves you tired but that's not quite the same thing as physical skill.
The issue isn't really whether chess is a sport or not, it's how high level gamers and athletes are funded. If being a sport makes playing elite chess easier for top players then obviously they'll want to try to define it as a sport. Because that's easier than trying to change the funding system to incorporate games as well as sports. I suspect chess is a relatively singular case because it's one of the few games played at a very high level worldwide.
I really don't see chess ever making it into the Olympics though. I'm not saying I'm particularly against the idea because it's a good, highly skilled game - but I can't see it being popular at all. The IOC tend to like rather more... fast and entertaining events, like skateboarding and breakdancing.
I'm always interested where people draw the line between "sport" and "not a sport" in discussions like these. It reminds me of discussions between what is and isn't "art". Your line being "any game which can be played just as well remotely" is not a sport. I've personally never seen this argument before, so I'd like to unpack just what this delimiter includes and excludes. First of all, you'd be excluding every single sport that is not directly played against an opponent. That means any time or score based sport would not count. If we just look at Olympic sports alone, we're now saying that archery, gymnastics, swimming, breakdancing, canoe/kayak, diving, figure skating, shooting, most ski events, trampoline, and most track and field events would all not count as sports because they could all be done remotely on separate tracks, courses, etc. Even more Olympic sports could be played remotely if we got a little creative.
Now let's take a look at your second criteria, which is one of the most common arguments: physical skill. I would be interested to know where you draw the line between something involving physical skill and something not. Moving chess pieces across a board is not physical skill, apparently, but is shooting? Is darts? Is poker? Is archery? If you don't break a sweat, does that matter? Do esports count? Do VR esports count? And frankly, this whole argument reeks of ableism. If someone isn't able to perform a satisfactory level of physical skill does that invalidate certain paralympic sports? Some paralympic sports have a sighted person on teams of blind athletes. Is that person not playing a sport because they are only using their eyes and speech to play?
This isn't about funding, it's about chess being seen as a serious competition. There's a big difference between calling one's self a "professional athlete" and a "professional chess (or poker, or fighting game) player". It's about being seen as a legitimate pastime in the eyes of the world. Let's not pretend that skateboarding being added to the Olympics, for example didn't give the sport a lot of legitimacy in the eyes of the public.
I would advise you to look at viewer counts and player counts of many of the most popular esports. League of Legends, Smash Bros, even Fortnite bring massive viewer counts for competition at the highest level. And poker championships draw big views as well.
More people have heard of Chess than a lot of Olympic sports, like curling, skeleton, nordic combined, or trampoline. I was just watching the Paralympics the other day and I was introduced to goalball: a sport I hadn't even heard of. So I don't think popularity really matters here, especially because trampoline was added relatively recently.
I wouldn't call equestrian, golf, shooting, archery, or curling particularly "fast".
And just because you don't find something entertaining doesn't mean no one can.
I wouldn't though, because you have to be present to do the thing. You don't have to be present at a chess board to play chess, you can literally play by mail. There is zero physical skill involved is the point, that's what I was illustrating with the remote point (read my other comments on this post).
You do have to be present to hold your bow, do a backflip, swim, dance, whatever. Chess doesn't require any physical interaction. Sports do. Players can be remote from each other, but no sports I know of can be played without the physical presence of the person doing the thing. You can run a trampolineing contest at different locations for different athletes but everyone has to bounce.
Honestly, if you're trying to argue that moving a chess piece requires physical skill then we're never going to agree. Also if you think shooting doesn't require physical skill then I hope we never meet on a shooting range, or in a pub with a dartboard!
I don't think poker is a sport either, frankly. It's a hell of a good game though.
Esports count, because they require physical skill. You need accuracy and timing and all that jazz. Try playing League while standing on the other side of the room and shouting your moves to someone. You can do that with chess, because chess doesn't require any physical skill.
Absolutely not. I apologise if I somehow implied that paratheletes weren't actual athletes because that wasn't my intention at all. There is no required level of physical skill to engage in sports - although many paratheletes are mad skilled. I'm shit at football but that doesn't make me any less of a sportsperson for that. But some physical skill is required - I can't stand on the sidelines and yell "kick it that way" to someone else and claim to be playing football. One can do that in chess. It might be odd and it might not be allowed in some rulesets but it's still theoretically possible to never touch a piece and still play chess.
Some people might read the insistence that chess is a sport as being a bit insulting to everyone who has spent time learning and honing a physical skill to perform their sport. I'm not sure I think that, personally, but it's not an invalid position.
Quite a lot of the article linked was about money and access to support, and how that would be easier if chess was a sport. But outside of that issue, I'm not sure many people don't see chess as serious. I've always known it as a very serious and cerebral game and I don't think I'm unusual in that. If you're prepared to accept people take competitive LoL seriously, I'm not sure why you'd think people don't take one of the oldest and most skill-intense games seriously.
Sure, but they're sports. ;)
More to the point, they're also much more fun to watch than chess which, let's be honest, is just two people mostly sitting still. If you don't know the game pretty well, it's not exciting. Even if you do, it's still long and slow (and bear in mind I'm a fan of Test cricket which is largely almost nothing happening for five solid days). But anyway, that's just my opinion on whether chess would be popular, it doesn't really change the widely accepted definition of a sport, one aspect of which is that it requires physical skill.
Being a game doesn't diminish chess in any way. Lots of games are perfectly serious, and should be taken seriously. But if chess is a sport then by the same definition so is Monopoly and that's pretty silly, isn't it?
I think your post is needlessly aggressive.
Ignoring that, I still think you’re being obtuse. There is no room for skill discrepancy in moving a chess piece.
Sure, it will pose different levels of difficulty for variously abled people but the move itself is binary in outcome — did you move the piece to the right square? It doesn’t even matter if it takes you 10 minutes compared to someone who can can do it in 1 second — the outcome is the same. Your ability has no outcome on the game beyond potentially requiring you to get someone to move the pieces for you.
I genuinely cannot understand how you think that's what I'm doing. Moving something is not a physical skill. It requires some physical capability, but that's not the same thing.
The key point I've tried to make again and again and again is that you don't even need that very basic physical capacity to play chess. If you are incapable of physical motion to the degree of, say, Stephen Hawking - you can still play chess (and Hawking did). You do not need to be able to move a piece to play chess. You need only communicate what you want moving, you opponent can move the piece. Chess requires absolutely zero physical skill and a physical capacity of only communication. Which is of course one of the great things about the game, it's accessible to almost anyone. That's absolutely fucking brilliant and there's not a lot of things that accessible. But it's also why it's not a sport.
Careful not to make too many assumptions here. I'm physically disabled myself. I can't participate in most sports, even if I wanted to (and I really, really, really want to, in particular I miss squash so much it almost moves me to tears sometimes). I used to play quite a lot of them (not football, was always shit at football). Not any more. Don't sweat it, I'm not offended. Yet. But please, do keep calling me ableist and we'll see how that goes, eh?
I can play chess though...
Physical capacity is not the same thing as skill, and to try equate the two just to make me look like a twat is somewhat disingenuous. There is no skill in moving a chess piece. That doesn't mean everyone can do it and I never said everyone can. I've said many times now that being able to move the pieces doesn't even matter.
Um, what? I didn't say I don't like chess. A chess match is two people mostly sitting still. That's just a fact. I've never seen a chess match - either on TV (couple of times, back in the 80s, chess was on TV), the internet or in person (and yes, I've bothered to go and watch it played competitively in person) - which isn't that, except those one-on-many exhibition matches which are lots of people sitting still and one person walking around. Am I wrong? It's been a good few years for me, has chess changed to the point where the players dance around between moves and cheerleaders perform on the sidelines? I suspect not.
I don't think I actually expressed an opinion about chess as a game, but let's clear that up quickly - I think it's a good game. It's a bit simple for my tastes at the moment, but I've played it plenty. I was in my school chess club. I played at university before getting into Go. Just to be really super extra clear I don't think chess is a simple game by any means, but it has relatively simple rules and I currently enjoy games which are a little more... complicated and weird and increasingly, co-operative rather than competitive. That's just a personal preference but I still enjoy a game of chess every so often.
Could you maybe try to read my comments in somewhat better faith? We might disagree about one thing - the definition of a sport - but to read so much of what I've written as some kind of attack on chess and disabled people and so on feels somewhat unfair and aggressive, especially when I've been taking time to be as clear as I can in what I have said and also what I very deliberately haven't said.
I never claimed that my opinion matters on whether chess is entertaining or not, but be honest, do you really, seriously think the crowds of people who go to football matches or watch tennis would sit through a chess match? If chess was going to be a stadium filler it would have already happened. It's never going to be a huge spectator thing. That's fine. Millions of people play and enjoy it.
On esports - I'm not sure if you've ever seen a big match but while you are right that the players are sitting mostly still at screens - nobody is watching the players, they're watching the actual match on the big screens. Matches are shorter. Faster. Louder. More colourful. You must know, really, that's just more entertaining for a lot of people than chess. I watch Test cricket and I also watch snooker sometimes - but I'd never for a second try to claim they were exciting and entertaining in the same way as skateboarding or basketball.
Well, it is played competitively. And it's not a sport because it involves no physical skill. Just like poetry isn't a sport (are you ready to call poetry a sport too? it has a competitive version..)
Almost every definition of "sport" that I can find - certainly all the major dictionaries - includes a requirement for some quantity of physical skill. Monopoly, like chess, is a game. There is nothing wrong with games. Games can be complex and cerebral and serious, I would say many of them much more so than many sports. Sport isn't that big a deal. It's just sport. But it does have a widely accepted definition, and that definition excludes chess. Sorry, clearly you're upset about that. But y'know. It's not my definition. I'm not 'gatekeeping' sport here. The gate you're running into is the one the majority of the world uses and when it comes to definitions, the majority always wins.
My question to you is why do you feel so incredibly strongly that the game you like has to be a sport? So strongly that you're prepared to try to change one of the core definitions of sport just to include it?
Playing remotely isn't the same thing as playing by yourself. I would take playing remotely to mean the kind of "remote" we've grown to accommodate in this pandemic - something that can be done, sedentary, laying down in the bed or at the kitchen table.
Yes, yes, yes, no, yes. No - though that's more up for debate. Yes, with caveats. Yes.
Come on, moving chess pieces across a board is not physical skill by any reasonable definition.
I think that if you try to frame a discussion about what constitutes sports in the context of ableism you're going to run into some problems. But regardless, I can't think of any Paralympic game that requires anywhere as little physical skill and effort as chess.
I don't think a sighted guide standing sedentary on the sidelines is playing the sport. I was under the impression most actively compete alongside a blind athlete though? Either way, they're a team.
That chess being considered a sport would give the game more "legitimacy" is undoubtedly true, but that's a pretty shoddy reason to rely on, no? The same could be true for, say, competitive Categories.
Popular within the structure and framework of the Olympic games.
And just because you haven't heard of a sport doesn't mean no one else has ;-)
There may have been specific exceptions due to covid, but AFAIK FIDE only recognizes over the table matches for its official rating and competitions, including the World Chess Championship and the Candidates Tournament (which defines the challenger to the title).
It is possible to play chess online, of course. It is also possible for someone to play soccer with their neighboors in the field nearby their house.... FIFA doesn't care about it in the slightest, and that doesn't make soccer less of a sport.
Correspondence chess is ruled by the International Correspondence Chess Federation and is considered distinct.
The argument for chess as a sport is generally for OTB chess only.
Whether postal chess is or isn't allowed in competition wasn't really what I was getting at. My point was more that chess can be played by post, because it has no physical skill (or even presence!) requirement. Cricket, on the other hand, is more of an in-person event. Snowboarding by email isn't a thing. Etc.
I can't think of a sport which doesn't require physical presence. Esports don't require all players to be in the same location, but they still have to be physically present at their computer. Regardless of the rules of various competitions, a chess game doesn't require either player to be at the board or ever touch a piece.
When it comes to high-level competitions with huge rewards, I would say that preventing cheating to any acceptable degree is very much something that can only happen in person.
Due to the impossibility of preventing cheating, Correspondence Chess currently expressly allows the use of chess engines. I wonder if it has become a competition to determine who's got the best computer.
I fear I may not be making my point very clearly. Forget the postal thing. Focus on the physical skill bit.
In competition, both players could stand several metres from the board and shout their moves to someone else who moves for them. No cheating, but still no physical presence at the board. There is zero physical skill in chess. For that reason I don't think it can be called a sport.
Additional to that, if you let chess be a sport then by the same definition you also have to let huge amounts of other board games be a sport as well. I do not go to my friends' houses for sports nights.
Sure, if the need to demonstrate physical prowesss of any kind is a necessary criteria for what makes a sport, than chess could hardly qualify. However, not everyone agrees with that criteria. That wasn't a problem for the International Olympic Committee, for example. One can disagree, of course.
In any case, this article does a good job demonstrating some of the physical aspects of chess.
A quick google suggests that it's very common to define a sport as requiring physical skill. All the major dictionaries do, for a start. I think if you're not including that requirement then you're really stretching the definition for reasons other than coming up with a reasonable and consistent definition, as I said in my first comment. And while I am sympathetic to those reasons, I don't think wanting something to be a sport because it makes the players lives easier is enough. Because by yours and the IOC's definition, now Monopoly is a sport as well and that's kinda silly.
Physical exertion is not the same thing as physical skill.
Oh yes, you didn't even need to google that, to be honest, your view is very much the most overwhelmingly popular and agreed upon.
But not everything that is universally agreed upon must necessarily remain so, right? Hence the articles, discussions, etc ;)
The question reminds me of chessboxing
This must be an interesting sport, although it may be also a way to get low quality chess and low quality boxing.
Blue Box Mac and Cheese has questionable quality ingredients, but it's still pretty darn successful. I guess "interesting" is comparable.
Oh yeah, for sure!
I don't know how they split the thing, but imagine a chess in which any draw will be solved by a boxing round? We would have EXTREMELY aggresive chess and even draws would be entertaining for everyone! I wanna see Ian Nepomniachtchi beat the shit out of Magnus Carlsen! :P