Chess not covered by BBC Sport??

[honeybee]

How come BBC Sport is not covering any chess events? The Anand - Topalov world championship match coverage is missing from the BBC website. And chess is not even listed as a category in the Other Sports. What gives?

.

[si_the_geek]

Not even the BBC are willing to pretend that a board game is a sport.

[abhijit]

Chess is not really a sport. It's a game. Perhaps you should check out ESPN. They cover poker tournaments too. I don't consider poker to be a sport either.

[mendhak]

See what's wrong here?

[EntityX]

I think Chess is a great game but I consider it just that a game. If someone wants to consider it a sport that's ok with me but it's really more of a game than a sport. It's much better in my opinion than the games that involve dice and things like roulette wheels where chance is very much involoved. If you win in Chess it's probably something like 95% because of your knowledge and skill at the game and perhaps something like 5% or less chance or luck. There is some luck involved because you might make a move that appears to be good to you. There might be many reasons that the move is actually a great move but you don't see why so there can be some luck in it.

I used to have an Internet Chess Club membership but it has expired. They cover such things and give commentary and even video of many matches. Maybe you could get coverage of the match with a free trial membership.

http://www.chessclub.com/

[mendhak]

I don't like chess clubs. They treat you with so little respect and the upper members keep making you do all these menial chores that have nothing to do with chess. They were weird things too, but I couldn't even make jokes out of them or talk back when they told me to do it. I was doing this for about half a year before I summed up the courage to ask them about it, and all they said was that the things I was doing was part of a much bigger plan. And again, I was tongue tied and couldn't respond to their ridiculous answers.

As it turns out, I had become and unwitty pawn in their plans.

[honeybee]

Chess is not really a sport.

Well, it does cover soccer with its "away goal", which I don't consider to be much sporting. So what's wrong with Chess?

How do you distinguish between a game and a sport?

.

[honeybee]

It's much better in my opinion than the games that involve dice and things like roulette wheels where chance is very much involoved. If you win in Chess it's probably something like 95% because of your knowledge and skill at the game and perhaps something like 5% or less chance or luck. There is some luck involved because you might make a move that appears to be good to you. There might be many reasons that the move is actually a great move but you don't see why so there can be some luck in it.

You mean there's no luck involved in soccer, tennis, volleyball or golf? Players don't go through bad patches? Their performance isn't affected by factors outside their control??

[si_the_geek]

Well, it does cover soccer with its "away goal", which I don't consider to be much sporting.

Whether you consider that particular rule (which is rarely implemented) to be fair or not, many millions do - and it is irrelevant to whether soccer is a sport or not.

So what's wrong with Chess?

How do you distinguish between a game and a sport?

.

Here are some definitions:

Sport: An activity involving physical exertion and skill that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often undertaken competitively.

Game: A competitive activity or sport in which players contend with each other according to a set of rules: the game of basketball; the game of gin rummy.

While nearly all sports can be considered games too, it rarely works the other way.

Unlike soccer etc, chess involves no physical exertion (and sometimes nothing physical at all, it is within the rules that somebody else can actually move the pieces for you).

Chess is a very good game (I have spent nearly 40 minutes playing it today), but it is not a sport.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

Well, it does cover soccer with its "away goal", which I don't consider to be much sporting. So what's wrong with Chess?

Sporting decisions like away goals has no bearing on whether something is a sport.

The main modern definition of whether something is a sport is that it should have some physical aspect to it, otherwise Darts would be a sport.

Honeybee, you really don't like the away goals rule do you ! you do realise the very few games in football are decided in this way.

[abhijit]

Well, it does cover soccer with its "away goal", which I don't consider to be much sporting. So what's wrong with Chess?

How do you distinguish between a game and a sport?

.

If you sit in a chair and do not have to exert yourself physically, it is a game. Otherwise it is a sport. Do remember that some games make you sweat. Bridge comes to mind as does Poker.

[FunkyDexter]

Unlike soccer etc, chess involves no physical exertion

I dunno... those rooks can be awfully heavy.

Come to think of it, that's probably why so many people consider darts a sport. Given the size of the players just getting to the ocky must count as physical exertion.

Well, it does cover soccer with its "away goal", which I don't consider to be much sporting

"whether or not something is "sporting" doesn't really define whether or not it's a "sport".

[abhijit]

Darts are a sport, since it involves standing up and throwing tiny projectiles towards a stationary target.

[honeybee]

Here are some definitions:

Sport: An activity involving physical exertion and skill that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often undertaken competitively.

Game: A competitive activity or sport in which players contend with each other according to a set of rules: the game of basketball; the game of gin rummy.

While nearly all sports can be considered games too, it rarely works the other way.

Unlike soccer etc, chess involves no physical exertion (and sometimes nothing physical at all, it is within the rules that somebody else can actually move the pieces for you).

Basketball is physical, it's played competitively, it's got rules too! But it doesn't fall under Sport?? How come there are Olympic Games, Winter Games, Commonwealth Games which don't include games such as Chess but have sports such as athletics?

.

[honeybee]

If you sit in a chair and do not have to exert yourself physically, it is a game. Otherwise it is a sport. Do remember that some games make you sweat. Bridge comes to mind as does Poker.

A game of football? Soccer? Tennis? Chess? Poker? Bridge? Golf?

A game of swimming?? Running (100 mtrs)?? Javelin throw?? Shot put??

Physical activity cannot be the criterion to call something a game or sport, as most of the physical "games" like football, cricket, tennis are just that: games.

However, as I listed the above two lines with single and double question marks, I noticed that swimming, running etc are not naturally called games. You don't ask your friend to join you in a game of swimming, but you may ask him/her for a game of chess or tennis.

Barring Golf, I see a distinction in the "games" and "non-games" listed above. Each of the games has two sides, one side has a first-move advantage and either of the sides wins or the game is drawn. For the "non-games" though, there aren't just two sides, but many players participating at the same time, no single player/side has a first-move advantage.

.

[honeybee]

If you sit in a chair and do not have to exert yourself physically, it is a game. Otherwise it is a sport. Do remember that some games make you sweat. Bridge comes to mind as does Poker.

OK, what about if I sit in a chair and all I keep doing is some finger stretching and toe-wiggling? Maybe turn my head a bit occasionally. And I sweat. Would this be enough physical activity to make it a sport?


No??





















Oh, I forgot to add, I might be hurtling down a racetrack at a speed of 150kmph in a car, a sport called Formula 1/Motorsport.

[si_the_geek]

Basketball is physical, it's played competitively, it's got rules too! But it doesn't fall under Sport??

Basketball is a sport too:

Game: A competitive activity or sport ...

Physical activity cannot be the criterion to call something a game or sport, as most of the physical "games" like football, cricket, tennis are just that: games.

It is part of the criterion, because that is part of the definition of the word Sport.

However, as I listed the above two lines with single and double question marks, I noticed that swimming, running etc are not naturally called games. You don't ask your friend to join you in a game of swimming, but you may ask him/her for a game of chess or tennis.

Agreed... it would sound wrong to call them games, but would technically be valid.

OK, what about if I sit in a chair and all I keep doing is some finger stretching and toe-wiggling? Maybe turn my head a bit occasionally. And I sweat. Would this be enough physical activity to make it a sport?

It could potentially be argued... but does it also involve skill and rules?

Oh, I forgot to add, I might be hurtling down a racetrack at a speed of 150kmph in a car, a sport called Formula 1/Motorsport.

If you think the only physical aspect of motorsport is just "finger stretching and toe-wiggling" you have a huge amount to learn!

There are good reasons for F1 drivers spending over 20 hours a week in the gym - and the current world champion having been in multiple world-class triathlons as part of his training.

[honeybee]

There are good reasons for F1 drivers spending over 20 hours a week in the gym - and the current world champion having been in multiple world-class triathlons as part of his training.

Well, let's look at it this way: While in the car, their only movements are with their hands (steering/pedal shifting/button pressing), feet (brake/accelerate), eyes and head. They want to spend time on workouts to keep them fit, obviously, during the race. I hope we have no confusion here.

While at chess, the players exercise their hands much more than those of the F1 drivers. You have to move the piece, press the clock and then write the move down. So in terms of amount of movement, chess beats F1. And you would be surprised to learn the fitness regime of Vishy Anand or even Garry Kasparov and most of the modern grandmasters.

Another question: Why is sitting in a chair for six hour or more not considered a physical activity? Is no effort required to keep the body in this posture?

.

[EntityX]

You can't force anyone to accept your own definition of something. We'll just say that you honeybee consider Chess to be a sport. That's ok with me. I think it's probably ok with most of the members here but respect our right to consider it to not be a sport. If someone wants to say that tiddly-winks is a sport that's ok with me. In my opinion I would call it a game but there might be a certain percentage of people that would like to call it a sport. I'm not going to argue with them.

I think sometimes people just like to hear themselves speak or in this case see themselves post and get a reaction to their speaking or posting which is ok.

[si_the_geek]

Well, let's look at it this way: ...

I hope you are being intentionally obtuse.

The total quantity of physical movements in an entire chess game will almost always be far less than a F1 driver does in a single lap - and the precision/speed/power/timing of the movements is massively less important in chess than in motorsport.

And you would be surprised to learn the fitness regime of Vishy Anand or even Garry Kasparov

I might be... but it has little/no relation to chess.

Another question: Why is sitting in a chair for six hour or more not considered a physical activity? Is no effort required to keep the body in this posture?

It is a physical activity, but not physical exertion (strenuous effort), or any other of the requirements of being called a sport.

You can't force anyone to accept your own definition of something.

Indeed... I just wish we could agree that dictionaries are close (the definitions I posted are directly from a dictionary).

We'll just say that you honeybee consider Chess to be a sport.

Agreed.

[Harsh Gupta]

Well, let's look at it this way: While in the car, their only movements are with their hands (steering/pedal shifting/button pressing), feet (brake/accelerate), eyes and head. They want to spend time on workouts to keep them fit, obviously, during the race. I hope we have no confusion here.

While at chess, the players exercise their hands much more than those of the F1 drivers. You have to move the piece, press the clock and then write the move down. So in terms of amount of movement, chess beats F1. And you would be surprised to learn the fitness regime of Vishy Anand or even Garry Kasparov and most of the modern grandmasters.

Another question: Why is sitting in a chair for six hour or more not considered a physical activity? Is no effort required to keep the body in this posture?

.

I would say that sport is a subset of game. A game has rules. A sport requires skill which means physical exertion. When you say F1, that is a game because you are competing with someone. But car driving is not a game. It is a sport. Basketball is a game because you always compete with some other team. Learning to dribble, dunk etc is a sport.

Baseball, Cricket, Football are sports, but their World series are games. If I jog, that is a sport, but if I compete in 100 mtrs, 400 mtrs etc, that is a game.

Same goes for Olympics. They are games and not sports because you are competing with others for medals etc.

And, I disagree that Chess has more physical movement than F1. In fact, F1 has more mental exercise and much more physical movement that chess.

There are rules for F1 like you cannot turn more than certain degree on this speed, you cannot overtake other car during this phase of track and so on. Synchronizing your hand movements, feet movements, and what your instructor is saying to you, and more importantly to point out constantly if you are not breaking any rules during any part of track is tad more difficult than what it appears. There are certain other rules, like height-weight ratio etc.

Chess on other hand, never required so much physical exertion. You can move around during a game if you wish. You can go for freshen up, have a drink (water of course, you geeks) or just move around but can't distract your opponent.

And mind you, if a dog comes up unexpectedly, F1 drivers have to pay attention and stop their cars without hurting the poor dog, who is already living a dog's life.

[EntityX]

And, I disagree that Chess has more physical movement than F1. In fact, F1 has more mental exercise and much more physical movement than chess.

I would agree with the first sentence in this quote but disagree with the first part of the second sentence. To say that F1 has more mental exercise than Chess could be true depending upon the particular situation. If someone is playing Chess with very little concentration and using very little mental energy in their play then an F1 driver who is driving with great alertness, concentration and skill would be going through greater mental exertion in their driving then the said Chess player.

If you were to compare the top grandmasters in the world playing Chess versus the top F1 drivers during their races then I would say the grandmasters would be going through more mental exertion than the F1 drivers but the F1 drivers would be going through greater physical exertion than the grandmasters.


By the way Anand is ahead in his world championship match against Topalov. Score 2.5 to 1.5.

http://www.chessclub.com/

It's interesting, Topalov's FIDE rating is 2805 and Anand's is 2787.

[Harsh Gupta]

I would agree with the first sentence in this quote but disagree with the first part of the second sentence. To say that F1 has more mental exercise than Chess could be true depending upon the particular situation. If someone is playing Chess with very little concentration and using very little mental energy in their play then an F1 driver who is driving with great alertness, concentration and skill would be going through greater mental exertion in their driving then the said Chess player.

If you were to compare the top grandmasters in the world playing Chess versus the top F1 drivers during their races then I would say the grandmasters would be going through more mental exertion than the F1 drivers but the F1 drivers would be going through greater physical exertion than the grandmasters.


By the way Anand is ahead in his world championship match against Topalov. Score 2.5 to 1.5.

http://www.chessclub.com/

It's interesting, Topalov's FIDE rating is 2805 and Anand's is 2787.

Well, yes, you have a valid point.

The reason I said more is because, while playing chess, you are just concentrating on the game than anything else. While games like F1 requires much more alertness. They have to focus on few more things than just the game itself.

[KiwiDexter]

Well, it does cover soccer with its "away goal", which I don't consider to be much sporting. So what's wrong with Chess?

How do you distinguish between a game and a sport?

.

Sports are the ones that Aussies and Kiwis do well in, eveything else is simply a game. Which puts Chess on par with American Football really. I hope that has answered your question and you will be cheering on the good guys at the 20/20 World Cup this evening.

Thank you for your time

[NeedSomeAnswers]

Well, let's look at it this way: While in the car, their only movements are with their hands (steering/pedal shifting/button pressing), feet (brake/accelerate), eyes and head. They want to spend time on workouts to keep them fit, obviously, during the race. I hope we have no confusion here.

The stresses on the drivers body form driving an F1 car are high because they are travelling at such speed and experiencing high G force. This makes Driving an F1 car so physically exerting. An F1 Driver normally loses weight during a race because of the amount of water they lose through sweat.

While at chess, the players exercise their hands

I hope you are trying to be funny? in typing this message i have probably exercised my hands more then a chess player would in a whole game, if you really really think that Chess is more physically exerting the F1 then your obviously deluded !

And you would be surprised to learn the fitness regime of Vishy Anand or even Garry Kasparov and most of the modern grandmasters.

Someone fitness regime has no bearing on whether something is a sport.

Another question: Why is sitting in a chair for six hour or more not considered a physical activity? Is no effort required to keep the body in this posture?

Chess while mentally exerting is no more physical then me sitting at work all day in my chair which no one would call a sport.

Also there are Plenty of Sports were you can be sitting down. Cycling, Rowing e.t.c standing up is not a pre-requisite of being a Sport.

Anyway why does it matter, There is absolutely nothing wrong with something being a Game, but chess like Darts, Bowls & Scrabble are exactly that Games !!!

[mendhak]

Would World of Warcraft be considered a sport, considering the players exercise their hands more than people in any board game (chess included) and have to be mentally alert to remember/survive things like tactics, boss immunities, raid member gear, boss-gear drops, Barrens chat, etc.?

What about Wii Fit?

[NeedSomeAnswers]

Would World of Warcraft be considered a sport, considering the players exercise their hands more than people in any board game (chess included) and have to be mentally alert to remember/survive things like tactics, boss immunities, raid member gear, boss-gear drops, Barrens chat, etc.?

What about Wii Fit?

Well that depends, is competitive Farting a Sport ? if the consensus is yes, then i see no reason why WOW cant be a sport too.

In fact i cant believe how many sports i have been involved in this morning already. Along with the challenging sport of "sitting down in my chair for long periods of time" and "Making a cup of Tea" and not forgetting the sport of "Going to the toilet", i mean i am a genuine all round Sporting god !

[honeybee]

You can't force anyone to accept your own definition of something. We'll just say that you honeybee consider Chess to be a sport. That's ok with me. I think it's probably ok with most of the members here but respect our right to consider it to not be a sport. If someone wants to say that tiddly-winks is a sport that's ok with me. In my opinion I would call it a game but there might be a certain percentage of people that would like to call it a sport. I'm not going to argue with them.

I think sometimes people just like to hear themselves speak or in this case see themselves post and get a reaction to their speaking or posting which is ok.

I don't think I have disrespected anyone's rights to look at things their own way. My intention by asking all these questions is to understand how people interpret sports and games, to find out if there is any difference, to present a few other points of differences and see the reactions. If you have got the impression that I am trying to force my views on others or am being disrespectful to others because of their differences of opinion, please point them out and I shall delete the relevant texts.

I have long back learnt there's nothing right and nothing wrong. There's no truth. It's only viewpoints. And I am not interested to find out whether I am right or wrong. I am only interested to know others' viewpoints. So if I have offended you, my apologies.

[EntityX]

No offense taken at all. I'm glad you have a very balanced viewpoint. I think it's good to learn how different people see things differently.

[honeybee]

No offense taken at all. I'm glad you have a very balanced viewpoint. I think it's good to learn how different people see things differently.

Hey, I never said I had a very balanced viewpoint!! But I am working towards it.

Harsh, the F1 cars sit so low, they have no way of running over a dog. Let's get back to the sport vs game debate.

So what are the criteria for deciding if an activity is a sport or a game?

1. Intense physical activity?
2. Competitiveness?
3. Two Sides/First Move advantage vs a more level playing field?

I am surprised to find no one has commented on #3 above. Do you people think it's a valid point when comparing football/tennis to athletics?

.

[si_the_geek]

Harsh, the F1 cars sit so low, they have no way of running over a dog.

There have been various wildlife incidents in F1 (such as Ant Davidson hitting a ?beaver? in Canada at about 200mph, I can't find a video ), but as yet the only dog incidents I've seen have been noticed in advance, so the drivers have had flags warning them to avoid it... it is safe to say that the dog would be very seriously injured if a car hit it at any kind of speed.

So what are the criteria for deciding if an activity is a sport or a game?

According to dictionaries, and thus what almost everyone agrees on:
Sport = physically strenuous, involves skill, has rules, can be competitive.
Game = competitive, has rules

There are some activities which a decent proportion of people will not agree on (such as Darts), but I have never heard anyone claim before that Chess is a sport.

3. Two Sides/First Move advantage vs a more level playing field?

I am surprised to find no one has commented on #3 above. Do you people think it's a valid point when comparing football/tennis to athletics?

The "level playing field" is highly debatable (eg: in athletics the lane that runners are in makes a difference), and is not relevant to whether something is a sport/game or not... neither of them include fairness as a requirement.

[Harsh Gupta]

I am surprised to find no one has commented on #3 above. Do you people think it's a valid point when comparing football/tennis to athletics?

Well I tried to, not that I meant I was right, but that stupid dog... (and I was joking, based on your other thread)

Anyways, just what Si said in the last post. Sports are games that includes physical exertion. Games are competitions or just games. You play games with your friends but might sport a bike (alone).

You jog, you are sporting; you participate in 100 mtrs race, it's a game.

You cannot compare 2 games and even 2 sports. You can play or exercise Football or tennis alone or with some other player, but you can never race alone or even if it is friendly racing, it meant you need to finish first.

Actually it is difficult to explain because I guess, their meanings/differences are somewhere hidden in those English explanations/definitions etc.

[NickThissen]

I think we're getting a little beside the point, aren't we?

The discussion is about 'when is something a sport', not 'when is something a game'... I don't see how something being a game has anything to do with it. Some sports are games (football, tennis), some are not (jogging). And the other way around, some games are sports (basketball), some are not (poker, monopoly, and yes, chess).

A sport is physically strenuous. If something is not physically strenuous, it is generally not considered a sport. So, generally, chess is not considered a sport.

A sport doesn't have to involve skill or competitiveness at all. I think we would all agree that jogging or working out can be considered sports, yet there is no skill or competitiveness (well perhaps with yourself) involved, unless you consider being able to run a skill...

Again, I don't see how something being a game or not is relevant at all.



Also, if you think F1 racing is not a sport, you are mistaken. The physical exertion these drivers go through are very large. If you ever raced a long race (longer then 10 minutes) in a simple go-kart you'll know why. Even in those slow karts you'll get exhausted pretty quickly, tired arms and even legs. I can only imagine what it would be like to drive F1 cars for hours at a time without a break... I'm pretty sure the average person wouldn't last 15 minutes in an F1 car.

[si_the_geek]

I'm pretty sure the average person wouldn't last 15 minutes in an F1 car.

I'm inclined to agree, based on the multiple-seat F1 cars that have been created for publicity/marketing purposes.

To even be allowed to get in one you need to fit size/weight restrictions, and pass a tough medical test. Even tho the cars are less powerful than the real thing, the maximum you can do is 5 laps (usually 3) at a time, with the driver deciding to stop earlier if they can't hear you on the intercom.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I don't like chess clubs. They treat you with so little respect and the upper members keep making you do all these menial chores that have nothing to do with chess. They were weird things too, but I couldn't even make jokes out of them or talk back when they told me to do it. I was doing this for about half a year before I summed up the courage to ask them about it, and all they said was that the things I was doing was part of a much bigger plan. And again, I was tongue tied and couldn't respond to their ridiculous answers.

As it turns out, I had become and unwitty pawn in their plans.

Well, if you are going to have such a be knighted attitude, it is little wonder you were rooked.

[FunkyDexter]

I've been trying to think of some decent definitions while reading this thread and, to be honest, I certainly can't come up with anything watertight. Everything I think of has an exception. The one about a sport needing to incvolve competition has been particularly challenging because I'm a climber. I thik it's a sport but I'm certainly not in cmpetition with anyone (except for bragging rights over my mates perhaps) so I'm quite glas that one's been dropped and I can go back to calling myself a sportsman again. With that in mind I offer up the following criteria for you all to shoot down in flames:-

1. Has to be physical but the physicality can be either skill based, power based or endurance based (or any combination of).
2. Has to be challenginging (not the same as competitive).
3. Has to be done purely for its own sake, not as a means to achieve a separate end goal.

That's about it for me. I can't think of anything that I'd call a sport that doesn't meet those criteria. I'm still not sure they're water tight though because I'm fairly sure ther are things that aren't sports that do meet them. E.G. Darts which I personally don't consider a sport but does meet all of the above. An even worse example would be speed eating.

Ant Davidson hitting a ?beaver? in Canada at about 200mph, I can't find a video

Personally, I think my imagination's sufficient to make the video redundant on this one

[si_the_geek]

In my opinion (based on a few dictionaries etc), number 1 should be:
1. Has to be physicality demanding.

..however one of the dictionaries I checked (and presumably some others I didn't) was no more specific in that respect than "physical", in which case "skill based" (and thus darts) would be covered by their definition.

Personally, I think my imagination's sufficient to make the video redundant on this one

The camera was far away so you didn't see anything gory (if you did, I certainly wouldn't re-watch it!), but it was quite a good comedy moment because it was just a few seconds before the entry to the pit lane - so he darted in to get the front wing replaced, but the pit crew had no warning so were just stood there going "what are you doing here? "

[Shaggy Hiker]

I remember seeing a video of a car (I think it was F1) hitting a deer, which was launched up into the tree canopy over the road, and didn't come back down in the length of the video. Perhaps there is still a deer carcass hanging in those trees.

[wossname]

I own a chess club.

I use it to bludgeon chess nerds that get too nasal in my vicinity.

[Hack]

You people are all overthinking this. It is very simple.

How do you distinguish between a game and a sport?

If you can pull a groin muscle, it is a sport.