A recent topic on this forum evolved into a debate over whether chess should be considered a "sport."
For some disputants, the question was resolved in the affirmative based on a ruling of the International Olympic Committee.
Others arguing in the affirmative pointed, variously, to the physical stamina required by classical tournament chess or to the strategy and competitiveness involved in chess. Quick time controls certainly require physical coordination (e.g., to move a piece and hit the clock in an efficient motion, or to use a mouse with skill in an online game). And few people would question that chessboxing should be deemed a sport.
But other disputants insisted that chess is absolutely not a sport, largely because it is not essentially dependent on physical prowess.
It's interesting to consider what this dispute is really about.
There are certain practical contexts in which it might be extremely important to determine whether a given activity should be considered a sport. For example, a court in the U.K. was asked a few years ago to consider whether the card game bridge constitutes a sport for purposes of eligibility for a tax break under a clause that applied to "sports."
But when divorced from a practical context, the dispute seems a bit like a debating game featuring semantic quibbling without a standard or decision method.
Ludwig Wittgenstein famously wrote about "language games." I wonder whether the debate about whether chess is a sport could itself be considered an example of language sport.
I remember a couple of years ago, I had to write a biography about our favourite sporting person and I wrote about Magnus Carlsen.
Eek! Not this again...
"Eek!" ?!
Has MrPushwood seen a mouse?
The intended topic here was not, "Is chess a sport?" but instead, "What might this question mean?"
Is MrP suggesting that the topic question (inquiring what this might mean) simply reduces to the underlying question being inquired about?
Maybe MrP is suggesting a new topic, perhaps "What does it mean when we ask what it might mean, whether chess is a sport?" I guess I would give that formulation an Eek! if it leaves us with an infinite regress. But I was sincere when I wanted to explore what the underlying question might mean.
In any case, apologies if this question about meaning has already been flogged to death.
The recent topic that led to a dispute as to whether or not chess is a sport started with a question about the propriety of allowing one's clock to run out in a Speed Chess Championship (I'm not sure if this was "arena" format or something else) so the tournament would conclude, in order to prevent further games from beginning, thus clinching tournament victory. People were arguing whether letting the chess clock run out was somehow unsporting, and the discussion then moved to whether or not chess is a sport. I believe those who urged that chess is indeed a sport were arguing that, because chess is sport, it is okay to let the chess clock expire in the SCC format in order to secure victory.
For example, in the sport of American (gridiron) football, it's considered perfectly acceptable strategy and not at all unsporting at the end of the fourth quarter for the team in the lead to let time expire (by repeatedly kneeling down with the ball, for example).
In the discussion, the dispute began in a rather concrete context (whether GM Hikaru Nakamura had played fairly or had instead behaved in an unsportsmanlike way in winning the speed tournament). It was interesting to me that the issue soon became whether or not chess is a "sport," and that some people seemed to be arguing that it must be unambiguously either a sport or not a sport, without a clear standard as to what counts as a sport, and no longer considering the context in which the question had emerged.
Hey, it's sure a sport!
For me "THE CANADIAN 11-YEAR-OLD GIRL" it's an exciting sport and I practice so much. I don't have any delay in practicing!
@jadubovic said in #5:
> without a clear standard as to what counts as a sport
There is a voluminous literature in the philosophy of sport on this question. There are many arguments, but the overwhelming consensus in this literature is that there is a standard as to what counts as a sport.
posting a lot of text in a chess forum is a sport
To the question of if chess is a sport?
I think that the most salient point of the debate is probably in favour of the opposition:
'A sport requires an amount of physical dexterity, where the accuracy/proficiency/skill/efficacy/etc. of the physical movement is measured in some kind of a point system, time system, scoring system, etc.'
Darts are a sport.
Speed Skating is a sport.
Basketball is a sport.
Spelling Bees are a competition.
Bridge is a competition.
Chess is a competition.
But, everyone agrees that these competitions definitely qualify as a 'mental sport'.
And, the same reason that the qualifier of 'mental' makes it all fit into perspective and make sense, is the same reason that it's probably not a sport.
-
As to the meaning of the debate, itself?
Noam Chomsky would probably be the expert regarding the psychological reasons behind us engaging in the debate, and the meaning thereof.
I think that "psychological sport" could be accurate.
I think that "language sport" could be accurate.
I think that "in the interest of accurate terms/definitions/linguistics/semantics" could be correct.
I think that "boredom" could be accurate.
I think that "interest" could be accurate.
I think that "enjoyment" could be accurate.
It's definitely a little bit ironic that the same engine behind the reason for the debate, is the same engine that we employ when attempting to suss out the best chess move in a position.
I think it could very well be the echoes of survival instinct in terms of the interest and importance of accuracy regarding our use of terms/definitions/linguistics/semantics.
I would be interested to learn more about what ClayAndSilence says is an "overwhelming consensus" in the literature in philosophy of sport, and to learn how that standard (as to what counts as sport) has been articulated.
When I studied philosophy, many years ago, it was rare to find overwhelming consensus in the philosophical literature regarding anything.
Is the consensus definition articulated in terms of criteria--that is, a set of necessary and sufficient conditions (Rudolph Carnap would have called this an "intensional" definition)? Or is the consensus definition instead framed as an exhaustive list that simply enumerates each member of the set of activities that count as sport (what Carnap would call an "extensional" definition)?
If the former, then what are those necessary and sufficient conditions? And is there really no controversy about this?
If the latter, then where do we find the list that is taken to be canonical? And would that list be considered (and if so, why would it be considered) more "official" or more reflective of overwhelming consensus than, say, the list of sports recognized by the Lausanne-based Association of IOC Recognised International Sports Federations? (FIDE is a member of ARISF, which recognizes chess as a sport.)
I'm not arguing one way or another. I'm simply asking for more information about the supposed overwhelming consensus.
