sitting on a desk/chair for hours, burning your head calculating all possible moves, clicking on the mousse hundreds of times
if that is not a sport I don't know what a sport is.
if that is not a sport I don't know what a sport is.
I appreciate the contribution by Onyx_Chess.
The term "mind sport" (or "mental sport") seems fairly new in the English language.
I suppose most people would agree that chess (even for those who consider it a "sport") is hardly a prototypical sport, even as an ivory-billed woodpecker would be considered less prototypical of birds than would a thrush or a sparrow, or some other relatively familiar bird. But of course what counts as a prototype is likely to vary across cultures.
I spent a few minutes looking up the etymology of "sport" in the Oxford English Dictionary. The word is thought to have its origins in earlier words related to "disport" (referring to entertainment, pastime, diversion). Physical athleticism does not seems to have been a necessary element in the early career of the word "sport," but of course this doesn't prove anything.
There are several amusing senses of "sport" listed in the O.E.D., including the following sense: "Lovemaking, amorous play; (also) sexual intercourse; an instance of this, an amorous exploit." Some of the quoted examples are 600 years old, and a 1616 quotation from Act II, scene 1 of Shakespeare's Othello is included: "When the blood is made dull with the act of sport."
In the Soviet days, wasn't support for chess for a certain period of time under the Ministry of Physical Culture?
The term "mind sport" (or "mental sport") seems fairly new in the English language.
I suppose most people would agree that chess (even for those who consider it a "sport") is hardly a prototypical sport, even as an ivory-billed woodpecker would be considered less prototypical of birds than would a thrush or a sparrow, or some other relatively familiar bird. But of course what counts as a prototype is likely to vary across cultures.
I spent a few minutes looking up the etymology of "sport" in the Oxford English Dictionary. The word is thought to have its origins in earlier words related to "disport" (referring to entertainment, pastime, diversion). Physical athleticism does not seems to have been a necessary element in the early career of the word "sport," but of course this doesn't prove anything.
There are several amusing senses of "sport" listed in the O.E.D., including the following sense: "Lovemaking, amorous play; (also) sexual intercourse; an instance of this, an amorous exploit." Some of the quoted examples are 600 years old, and a 1616 quotation from Act II, scene 1 of Shakespeare's Othello is included: "When the blood is made dull with the act of sport."
In the Soviet days, wasn't support for chess for a certain period of time under the Ministry of Physical Culture?
@kaotic99 said in #8:
> chess never was a sport, it's a board game...
Your comment is funny and succinct, but by the same reasoning: running was never a sport, it's the thing you learn after learning to walk.
Wrestilng is a sport, even though weightlifting is a better indicator for physical strength. The main difference is how you understand tactics and strategy, in relation to your strength.
As muscular strength is not being tested in chess, it is essentially the function of strategy and tactics. Therefore, there is a way in which chess is the sportiest of sports, in pure strategy and tactics.
Precisely what someone means when they say "sport" is not obvious, there is a credible argument against chess being considered a sport, as well as that it is. There are many "sports" which may be considered "not a sport" for various reasons (hunting, surfing, pankration). Therefore, I agree that agonising over the meanings of "sport" is language on holiday, precisely as Wittg. meant it. In the broadest sense, sport includes chess, even if you personally define chess to be "not a sport".
> chess never was a sport, it's a board game...
Your comment is funny and succinct, but by the same reasoning: running was never a sport, it's the thing you learn after learning to walk.
Wrestilng is a sport, even though weightlifting is a better indicator for physical strength. The main difference is how you understand tactics and strategy, in relation to your strength.
As muscular strength is not being tested in chess, it is essentially the function of strategy and tactics. Therefore, there is a way in which chess is the sportiest of sports, in pure strategy and tactics.
Precisely what someone means when they say "sport" is not obvious, there is a credible argument against chess being considered a sport, as well as that it is. There are many "sports" which may be considered "not a sport" for various reasons (hunting, surfing, pankration). Therefore, I agree that agonising over the meanings of "sport" is language on holiday, precisely as Wittg. meant it. In the broadest sense, sport includes chess, even if you personally define chess to be "not a sport".
@jadubovic dude, your forum posts are long.
I think these are good questions.
As for the matter of etymology...your usage in the first post implied a very specific example (chess) within a very specific context (global society 2022). Therefore, in this case, I don't think that studying the etymology helps move us forward.
-
As for the matter of other usages...if we conflate your specific usage in the first post with other forms of "sport" and "sporting", then we move to confuse the issue instead of clarifying it. It's a form of 'moving the goalposts'.
For example: Posing the question, "Is chess considered sporting?" and then using this verbiage to conflate this ambiguous meaning of "sport" with your very specific usage of "sport", is probably not an accurate way to make progress.
-
As for the matter of mouse dexterity...the fact that there is a perceived need/tendency to muddy the waters by introducing ultrabullet time controls as applies to mouse accuracy...is not a point in favour of the proposition that chess is a sport.
Ultrabullet, itself, is under debate as to whether or not it qualifies as "chess". Such debate is not present with standard time controls. Further, Over The Board, I've never seen a chess player accidentally drop a queen a square short when they had intended to trade. These aren't chess moves. Mouse errors are non-moves that have nothing to do with chess.
-
As for the matter of dictionary definition...I.C.C. chat did a 48 hour deep dive on this matter and it was a very strong argument that 'physical dexterity' was a necessary ingredient if the question and context is one of "Is chess considered a sport?"
Is chess sport? Sure.
Is chess sporting? Absolutely.
Is chess a sport? Probably not.
There is a reason why we don't see this argued between football/baseball/soccer/basketball.
The fact that it's even a discussion moves against the proposition of chess being a sport.
There is a reason why we instinctively understand that backgammon and chess are in one class, and golf and shuffleboard are in another.
This understanding is not because the language has forced this intuition upon us.
This understanding exists because of the unique qualities that would have us classify a word or an idea in one way, vs. another, based on the commonalities and group characteristics of 'said' word/idea.
-
That said...It's entirely possible that in other parts of the world, or in other time periods, there may be no distinction made between 'sport' and 'competition'.
However, in our part of the world, where these distinctions are apparent...and respecting your very specific usage of "a sport"...it seems that the linguistics and semantics speak for themselves...and it seems as if one has to struggle and perform mental jiu-jitsu in order to make the case that chess is a sport.
As for the matter of etymology...your usage in the first post implied a very specific example (chess) within a very specific context (global society 2022). Therefore, in this case, I don't think that studying the etymology helps move us forward.
-
As for the matter of other usages...if we conflate your specific usage in the first post with other forms of "sport" and "sporting", then we move to confuse the issue instead of clarifying it. It's a form of 'moving the goalposts'.
For example: Posing the question, "Is chess considered sporting?" and then using this verbiage to conflate this ambiguous meaning of "sport" with your very specific usage of "sport", is probably not an accurate way to make progress.
-
As for the matter of mouse dexterity...the fact that there is a perceived need/tendency to muddy the waters by introducing ultrabullet time controls as applies to mouse accuracy...is not a point in favour of the proposition that chess is a sport.
Ultrabullet, itself, is under debate as to whether or not it qualifies as "chess". Such debate is not present with standard time controls. Further, Over The Board, I've never seen a chess player accidentally drop a queen a square short when they had intended to trade. These aren't chess moves. Mouse errors are non-moves that have nothing to do with chess.
-
As for the matter of dictionary definition...I.C.C. chat did a 48 hour deep dive on this matter and it was a very strong argument that 'physical dexterity' was a necessary ingredient if the question and context is one of "Is chess considered a sport?"
Is chess sport? Sure.
Is chess sporting? Absolutely.
Is chess a sport? Probably not.
There is a reason why we don't see this argued between football/baseball/soccer/basketball.
The fact that it's even a discussion moves against the proposition of chess being a sport.
There is a reason why we instinctively understand that backgammon and chess are in one class, and golf and shuffleboard are in another.
This understanding is not because the language has forced this intuition upon us.
This understanding exists because of the unique qualities that would have us classify a word or an idea in one way, vs. another, based on the commonalities and group characteristics of 'said' word/idea.
-
That said...It's entirely possible that in other parts of the world, or in other time periods, there may be no distinction made between 'sport' and 'competition'.
However, in our part of the world, where these distinctions are apparent...and respecting your very specific usage of "a sport"...it seems that the linguistics and semantics speak for themselves...and it seems as if one has to struggle and perform mental jiu-jitsu in order to make the case that chess is a sport.
Yes, my forum posts are too long. Thanks for reminding me.
It seems there was an official title in the USSR for Soviet "Sport Masters" in Chess:
заслуженных мастеров спорта СССР (шахматы).
It seems there was an official title in the USSR for Soviet "Sport Masters" in Chess:
заслуженных мастеров спорта СССР (шахматы).
@jadubovic said in #17:
> It seems there was an official title in the USSR for Soviet "Sport Masters" in Chess:
> заслуженных мастеров спорта СССР (шахматы).
"Sport Masters" may apply to the context of "sporting" and "sport".
It might not address the context of "considered a sport".
And even if it did, it's one group of people making the claim...in which case the question should be altered from, "Should chess be considered a sport?" to, "Is there anyone on this planet who would classify chess as a sport?"
> It seems there was an official title in the USSR for Soviet "Sport Masters" in Chess:
> заслуженных мастеров спорта СССР (шахматы).
"Sport Masters" may apply to the context of "sporting" and "sport".
It might not address the context of "considered a sport".
And even if it did, it's one group of people making the claim...in which case the question should be altered from, "Should chess be considered a sport?" to, "Is there anyone on this planet who would classify chess as a sport?"
@jadubovic said in #11:
> 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.
The main definitional debate in the literature, as I understand it, is about what constitutes a game. There has been significant debate on this for many decades. Sport, as a term, appears to be less contentious. It's generally distinguished from a game as having similar or same qualities but also requiring physical skill. In that sense, the concept of sport builds on the concept of game, with the main arguments taking place over the latter rather than the former. This what I mean when I say the definition of sport has a strong degree of consensus, even though its foundational concept is contested.
> When I studied philosophy, many years ago, it was rare to find overwhelming consensus in the philosophical literature regarding anything.
I think there is an interesting distinction why the concepts of 'game' and 'sport' don't enjoy the same level of consensus. 'Game', being a foundational concept, has to also be a theory. Contestation is inevitable. Whereas the notion of sport, as it builds on the theory of 'game', seems equally applicable *no matter which theory of game you adopt*, and requires less theorising.
Now, that said, I'm not a specialist (my expertise, such as it is, lies elsewhere), so always open to correction.
> 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.
The main definitional debate in the literature, as I understand it, is about what constitutes a game. There has been significant debate on this for many decades. Sport, as a term, appears to be less contentious. It's generally distinguished from a game as having similar or same qualities but also requiring physical skill. In that sense, the concept of sport builds on the concept of game, with the main arguments taking place over the latter rather than the former. This what I mean when I say the definition of sport has a strong degree of consensus, even though its foundational concept is contested.
> When I studied philosophy, many years ago, it was rare to find overwhelming consensus in the philosophical literature regarding anything.
I think there is an interesting distinction why the concepts of 'game' and 'sport' don't enjoy the same level of consensus. 'Game', being a foundational concept, has to also be a theory. Contestation is inevitable. Whereas the notion of sport, as it builds on the theory of 'game', seems equally applicable *no matter which theory of game you adopt*, and requires less theorising.
Now, that said, I'm not a specialist (my expertise, such as it is, lies elsewhere), so always open to correction.
@ClayAndSilence
What do you think of the idea that it's just the conflation between "sport" and "a sport" that complicates things?
For instance: "One small step for mankind..." could also have been "One small step for man..." or "One small step for humankind..." or "One small step for human beings..."
All of these are synonymous and include women and their many contributions and inventions which made NASA possible.
But this doesn't mean that Mrs. Smith, down the block, should therefore be considered "a man".
"sport" and "a sport" are two different things.
"man" and "a man" are two different things.
What are your thoughts?
What do you think of the idea that it's just the conflation between "sport" and "a sport" that complicates things?
For instance: "One small step for mankind..." could also have been "One small step for man..." or "One small step for humankind..." or "One small step for human beings..."
All of these are synonymous and include women and their many contributions and inventions which made NASA possible.
But this doesn't mean that Mrs. Smith, down the block, should therefore be considered "a man".
"sport" and "a sport" are two different things.
"man" and "a man" are two different things.
What are your thoughts?
I'm generally quite happy to let people use the word "sport" however they wish to. It's okay with me if some people feel strongly one way (or another) about whether or not chess should be deemed a sport. I don't claim, nor do I feel any need, to have an authoritative answer to the underlying question, but I'm enjoying reading the discussion so far.
My own sense is that human thinking doesn't ordinarily need to posit absolute binary oppositions (e.g., "either sport or non-sport, but not both") in order to think logically. Bivalence and excluded-middle can be useful in some contexts, but words (or concepts, if you prefer), especially the more generic or abstract they are, tend to have "open texture" as an important feature. I'm willing to tolerate vagueness and ambiguity. Much of our experience as human beings, like much of our thought and language, involves ambiguity and vagueness.
My own sense is that human thinking doesn't ordinarily need to posit absolute binary oppositions (e.g., "either sport or non-sport, but not both") in order to think logically. Bivalence and excluded-middle can be useful in some contexts, but words (or concepts, if you prefer), especially the more generic or abstract they are, tend to have "open texture" as an important feature. I'm willing to tolerate vagueness and ambiguity. Much of our experience as human beings, like much of our thought and language, involves ambiguity and vagueness.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.