PDA

View Full Version : Chess as a sport / definition of sport



Lucena
06-04-2004, 03:30 PM
dont start gareth :p i think chess is a sport.
well I think it isn't. Anyone care to share their point of view?

Paul S
06-04-2004, 04:01 PM
If you ask me, its a real "grey area" as far as whether or not chess is a sport! I suppose for funding purposes it would be good if chess is a sport. :) ;) :p

As far as the media is concerned, where does chess get categorised? The SMH has Peter Parr's weekly Monday column sandwiched between the business and classifieds. The Sun-Herald has Ian Rogers' article at the bottom of its weather page. On very rare occasions I see chess results in the sports sections of newspapers. Form what I remember the Bulletin (which I read about twice a year) has a chess article in its games section.

IMHO its in the "too hard" basket as to whether or not chess is a sport!

Garvinator
06-04-2004, 04:07 PM
nice pun paul s :p but i dont agree that it is a gray area at all ;) it is clearly black and white :lol: .

as i have said before and have admonished people previously about their opinion when they said that chess isnt really a sport(remember that jenni ;) ) i firmly believe that chess is a sport. to me anything that is played in an organised competition with formal rules, codes of conducts etc is a sport.

Also one of the main reasons i consider chess to be a sport, is the timer. If you have a look at all other 'more mainstream' sports, they all have a time component. either it is how long you have to do your routine, or how long the games go for or the fastest wins. each has a finite time component. this is my opinion anyway. :whistle:

jenni
06-04-2004, 04:53 PM
nice pun paul s :p but i dont agree that it is a gray area at all ;) it is clearly black and white :lol: .

as i have said before and have admonished people previously about their opinion when they said that chess isnt really a sport(remember that jenni ;) ) i firmly believe that chess is a sport. to me anything that is played in an organised competition with formal rules, codes of conducts etc is a sport.

Also one of the main reasons i consider chess to be a sport, is the timer. If you have a look at all other 'more mainstream' sports, they all have a time component. either it is how long you have to do your routine, or how long the games go for or the fastest wins. each has a finite time component. this is my opinion anyway. :whistle:

I am quite happy to sometimes regard chess as a sport (and have it included on schoosl sports calendars etc). However I think when you are working in the junior area, you see a strong leaning into other areas. e.g. when we are talking to schools we really push the educational benefits of chess. It then becomes very hard to regard chess as a "pure" sport, when you can see so much more to it.

I had to go on local ABC radio the other day for a bit of a chat on chess and I did some research prior to going on. The USA is doing a fair bit on the educational benefits of chess and one of the things that impressed me was a claim that in some research in California, 55% of children showed an increase in attention span and concentration after having chess introduced into the curriculum.

I don't think we should be ashamed to say chess is multi-dimensioned - it is more than just a sport, but crosses boundaries between art, sport and education.

I

Paul S
06-04-2004, 05:00 PM
I don't think we should be ashamed to say chess is multi-dimensioned - it is more than just a sport, but crosses boundaries between art, sport and education.


Well said Jenni!

Garvinator
06-04-2004, 05:04 PM
jenni, you say that chess provides so much more than 'just' sport, but i would think every sport provides more than just sport?

jenni
06-04-2004, 05:13 PM
jenni, you say that chess provides so much more than 'just' sport, but i would think every sport provides more than just sport?

Well yes it does - co-operation, team spirit, facing adversity etc etc.

I haven't seen too much in sport that build cognitive ability though? Although having said that I had an interesting chat to some soccer people when I was at a Sport and Rec lunch the other day. They had one of our good chess kids in one of their soccer teams and they made the comment that his strategic thinking ability enabled him to play very intelligent soccer and I made the comment that his soccer fitness enabled him to play good chess.

So perhaps there is more cross over than first appears evident with strategic thinking of benefit in many sports.

However I would find it hard to convince a school that cricket or even softball (one of the really strategic sports), is needed to extend mathematically advanced students, whereas it is much easier to argue the case for chess.

eclectic
06-04-2004, 05:16 PM
I don't think we should be ashamed to say chess is multi-dimensioned - it is more than just a sport, but crosses boundaries between art, sport and education.
Indeed, Jenni,

It's a wonder chess isn't on the world cultural heritage list ... ( is there such a thing?) ... (unless it is there already) ...

Hmmm, how would UNESCO react to the idea?

:hmm:

eclectic

chesslover
06-04-2004, 11:36 PM
As far as the media is concerned, where does chess get categorised? The SMH has Peter Parr's weekly Monday column sandwiched between the business and classifieds. The Sun-Herald has Ian Rogers' article at the bottom of its weather page. On very rare occasions I see chess results in the sports sections of newspapers. Form what I remember the Bulletin (which I read about twice a year) has a chess article in its games section.

IMHO its in the "too hard" basket as to whether or not chess is a sport!

Paul

The SUn Herald has chess in the sports section regularly. It is one of the only papers here to do so regularly mate

chesslover
06-04-2004, 11:39 PM
I had to go on local ABC radio the other day for a bit of a chat on chess and I did some research prior to going on. The USA is doing a fair bit on the educational benefits of chess and one of the things that impressed me was a claim that in some research in California, 55% of children showed an increase in attention span and concentration after having chess introduced into the curriculum.

I

where did you get this research????? is there a web link you could post for us here????

55% increase is very impressive :eek:

Rincewind
07-04-2004, 12:46 AM
well I think it isn't. Anyone care to share their point of view?

I can't think why it isn't a sport. Why do you think chess isn't a sport?

shaun
07-04-2004, 09:15 AM
Is Lloyd Fell an athlete?

eclectic
07-04-2004, 09:28 AM
Is Lloyd Fell an athlete?
Isn't Lloyd (I presume you mean Lloyd Fell Snr) an excellent example of the benefits of chess in helping to keeping ones mind alert in later years?

As for being an athlete, he, for his age, may be fitter than many younger chess players.

eclectic

Alan Shore
07-04-2004, 09:44 AM
I had to go on local ABC radio the other day for a bit of a chat on chess and I did some research prior to going on. The USA is doing a fair bit on the educational benefits of chess and one of the things that impressed me was a claim that in some research in California, 55% of children showed an increase in attention span and concentration after having chess introduced into the curriculum.

Obviously we don't know how reliable that study was without things like sample size and availability of statistical analysis but that is an encouraging figure.

Personally, I don't know if chess has improved my concentration. I have a lot of trouble concentrating during a long chess game, during university lectures and sometimes even in conversations - It's really irritating to not be able to focus too since I believe concentration is a very useful asset in both learning and performance.

Specifically in chess, that's why I believe I perform so much better in games around 15 minutes rather than an hour, as my concentration waivers in long games and I spend most of my clock time thinking about anything but my game. No wonder my rapid rating is about 300 points higher than my normal.... :confused:

arosar
07-04-2004, 09:49 AM
In my beloved Philippines, chess is definitely treated as a sport. News regarding it appear in the sports pages. And as I have mentioned elsewhere, chess receives funding from the government Sports Commission body.

Anyway, my own feeling is that chess is not a sport. I will only say it is for the sake of supporting the aims to acquire government funding.

AR

shaun
07-04-2004, 11:00 AM
Isn't Lloyd (I presume you mean Lloyd Fell Snr) an excellent example of the benefits of chess in helping to keeping ones mind alert in later years?

Yes, but this has nothing to do with sport



As for being an athlete, he, for his age, may be fitter than many younger chess players.
eclectic
But does that make him an athlete or the other players non-athletes?

If you take a simplistic definition of sport as something done by athletes, where does that leave chess?

(Of course you can dispute the definition chosen)

samspade
07-04-2004, 11:28 AM
Isn't Lloyd (I presume you mean Lloyd Fell Snr) an excellent example of the benefits of chess in helping to keeping ones mind alert in later years?

eclectic
that really is a very sick joke I only hope you're not being serious

samspade
07-04-2004, 11:34 AM
I remember that most Russian chess players had to be pretty fit. I have heard that being more fit helps you to play better

samspade
07-04-2004, 11:37 AM
isn't chess considered a sport in Russia and Yugoslavian countries I thought its mainly western countries where its not

Rincewind
07-04-2004, 11:40 AM
Is Lloyd Fell an athlete?

Thanks to Rene Descartes and the mind(soul)/body dichotomy we make a distinction between physical attributes of strength, stamina, agility, etc, and their mental equivalents. However, for rationalists, such a distinction is largely arbitrary.

Lloyd has the mental fitness required for someone to be classified as an athlete is my books. If you're going to complain as say the definition of athlete requires just the physical mainifestation of these attributes then I guess we can use the term "sportsman".

If you are using the narrow definition of sport to mean "athletics" then I think I would have to argue you are using too narrow a definition of sport.

Does that make sense?

jenni
07-04-2004, 11:47 AM
where did you get this research????? is there a web link you could post for us here????

55% increase is very impressive :eek:

I didn't save that particular web-address, but here are 2 I did save.

http://chess.photobooks.com/genesis/web_pages/html/smart.html

this is an extract from that one which I found interesting

"Étude Comparative sur les Apprentissages en Mathématiques 5e Année by Louise Gaudreau (30 June 1992) has recently been translated and offers some of the most exciting news yet about chess in education. The study took place in the province of New Brunswick from July 1989 through June of 1992.

Three groups totaling 437 fifth graders were tested in this research. The control group (Group A) received the traditional math course throughout the study. Group B received a traditional math curriculum in first grade and thereafter an enriched program with chess and problem solving instruction. The third group (Group C) received the chess enriched math curriculum beginning in the first grade.

There were no significant differences among the groups as far as basic calculations on the standardized test; however, there were statistically significant differences for Group B and C in the problem solving portion of the test (21.46% difference in favor of Group C over the Control Group) and on the comprehension section (12.02% difference in favor of Group C over the Control Group). In addition, Group C’s problem solving scores increased from an average 62% to 81.2%!"

This is another webaddress

http://www.chess.bc.ca/marcel2.html

arosar
07-04-2004, 01:21 PM
Boys and girl (that's you jenni) - youse listen to NPR at all? Last week, they had an interesting report on chess in colleges in the US. Seems that some colleges actually offer scholarships to chess players - you know, bit like sports scholarships and all that.

http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1803347

There is also a coupla links to related stories. Need audio. Give us your feedback here.

AR

PHAT
07-04-2004, 04:12 PM
If you take a simplistic definition of sport as something done by athletes, where does that leave chess?


Darts players are the most buff and action-men I know, and by crickey, golfers are absolute gods ... not.

Rincewind
07-04-2004, 04:18 PM
Darts players are the most buff and action-men I know, and by crickey, golfers are absolute gods ... not.

Althlete is a word with many meanings as you say. Darts and golf. Or even more "athletic" sports. Compare, say, a weight lifter with a jockey. Jut because the chess athlete doesn't fit the athletic archtype as defined by our culture, doesn't make them less athletic.

PHAT
07-04-2004, 04:44 PM
Althlete is a word with many meanings as you say. Darts and golf. Or even more "athletic" sports. Compare, say, a weight lifter with a jockey. Jut because the chess athlete doesn't fit the athletic archtype as defined by our culture, doesn't make them less athletic.

Is the world Tiddly-Winks champion an athlele?

Listen all: I do not like sounding like a philosopher/wanker, but hey, definitions are important.

1. Agree on a succinct definition for the important words - sport, athlete, game, player, competion, skill, physical, psychological, stress, training, et cetera. Do not include examples in a definition!!!!
2. Compare your definitions to chess - or any other uneconomic human behaviour like darts or base jumping or trivia nights.

So, now, in 10 words or less, define "sport".

Oepty
07-04-2004, 05:19 PM
Matthew. I will start the ball off with a definition.
A organised compeditative activity, governed by an agreed set of rules that requires some physical skill to undertake it.
Maybe a little broad in some ways so I am sure someone can improve on it.

Interestingly I once had a discussion with a fromer Russian who stated chess was a sport but criket most definitely was not. Also party to the conversation was a person with Serbian or Croatian or something similar said it was a sport, but a person with Japanese background was addament it wasn't.
Scott

Rincewind
07-04-2004, 05:23 PM
Matthew. I will start the ball off with a definition.
A organised compeditative activity, governed by an agreed set of rules that requires some physical skill to undertake it.
Maybe a little broad in some ways so I am sure someone can improve on it.

Ah, now we begin to see the problem with the definition game. They go on and on and are necessarily circular (especially given Matt's proviso of no definition by example).

Anyway, for what it's worth...

Define "physical" skill as distinct from any other sort of skill. Because from my standpoint all skills are necessarily "physical" - given that I reject the existence of the spiritual.

Oepty
07-04-2004, 05:30 PM
Barry.
Well I guess it doesn't take long to destroy a definition thought up in 30 seconds.

I will improve it to,

A organised compeditative activity, governed by an agreed set of rules that requires some energetic movement of the body to undertake it.

Scott

PHAT
07-04-2004, 05:38 PM
Barry.
A organised compeditative activity, governed by an agreed set of rules that requires some energetic movement of the body to undertake it.


Can we do without the word "energetic"?

PHAT
07-04-2004, 05:44 PM
Define "physical" skill as distinct from any other sort of skill. Because from my standpoint all skills are necessarily "physical" - given that I reject the existence of the spiritual.


Are you discounting the possibility that there is such a phenominum as "mind"? I agree that there is no spirit - ghoust in the machine - but objectively there is mind.

Rincewind
07-04-2004, 07:50 PM
Are you discounting the possibility that there is such a phenominum as "mind"? I agree that there is no spirit - ghoust in the machine - but objectively there is mind.

No but the mind is purely material manifestation and no less physical therefore than any other attribute.

Garvinator
07-04-2004, 07:57 PM
No but the mind is purely material manifestation and no less physical therefore than any other attribute.

I have swiped this definition from the web, it matches the definition i knew of defining sport from my studies.

Definition of sport:


Sport means all forms of physical activity, which through casual or organised participation; aim at expressing or improving physical fitness and mental well-being, forming social relationships or obtaining results in competencies at all levels.

(Definition used in the QAA Benchmark statement for Sport, Hospitality and Tourism, and in turn, taken from Council of Europe European Sports Charter. London: Sports Council).

The word 'athlete' is used as generic term that includes any individual active in sport.

Rincewind
07-04-2004, 08:06 PM
I have swiped this definition from the web, it matches the definition i knew of defining sport from my studies.

How is kicking a football and more "physical" than calculating a variation?

Garvinator
07-04-2004, 08:09 PM
How is kicking a football and more "physical" than calculating a variation?
just remember barry, i am on the side of chess is a sport :owned: plz remember that :lol:

Rincewind
07-04-2004, 08:14 PM
just remember barry, i am on the side of chess is a sport :owned: plz remember that :lol:

Don;t take my comments personally, it was an open question.

I note the use of the work physical twice in the definition you posted. It just seems this is based on a mind/body dichotomy which is tenuous at best.

Garvinator
07-04-2004, 08:18 PM
Don;t take my comments personally, it was an open question.

I note the use of the work physical twice in the definition you posted. It just seems this is based on a mind/body dichotomy which is tenuous at best.
ill take that as i note the use of the WORD physical :doh:

Rincewind
07-04-2004, 08:21 PM
ill take that as i note the use of the WORD physical :doh:

Yes, damn left and right hand got mixed up. ;)

Garvinator
07-04-2004, 08:24 PM
Yes, damn left and right hand got mixed up. ;)
im surprised you didnt go back and correct and then claim that im not reading your posts correctly and inventing errors ;) :p

Rincewind
07-04-2004, 08:33 PM
im surprised you didnt go back and correct and then claim that im not reading your posts correctly and inventing errors ;) :p

By controlling the past, you control the present. And if you control the present you control the future.

Garvinator
07-04-2004, 08:34 PM
By controlling the past, you control the present. And if you control the present you control the future.
well that could be an interesting off chess topic you know, how do you control the past :lol:

Rincewind
07-04-2004, 08:37 PM
well that could be an interesting off chess topic you know, how do you control the past :lol:

By editing posts. Don't know how interesting it is. The theory is 20 years out of date.

Alan Shore
08-04-2004, 12:36 AM
Sport means all forms of physical activity, which through casual or organised participation; aim at expressing or improving physical fitness and mental well-being, forming social relationships or obtaining results in competencies at all levels.

Do you all feel that much fitter from stretching out those hands to move the pieces and pressing your clocks? I think the key word in that sentence is 'and'.

Still, the adrenalin you get in a guillotine finish when you've got only a minute or two left is incredible! Increment kinda destroys my fun :doh:

Rhubarb
08-04-2004, 01:33 AM
Don;t take my comments personally, it was an open question.

I note the use of the work physical twice in the definition you posted. It just seems this is based on a mind/body dichotomy which is tenuous at best.
I wouldn't say definitions of sport that use the word physical are necessarily based on mind/body dualism. It is more likely that these definitions are referring to the exertion of non-brain parts of the body. Under such definitions, sport requires the physical exertion of the non-brain parts of the body as well as the the physical exertion of the brain, whereas chess effectively only involves the latter, the benefits of overall physical fitness notwithstanding.

eclectic
08-04-2004, 01:56 AM
whereas chess effectively only involves the latter, the benefits of overall physical fitness notwithstanding.
To be recognised as a sport in Australia chess would have to be played using a really huge heavy set ( to emulate the "sport" of weightlifting ) and played in the middle of the 100 metre track with one part of the digital clock each end so that players would have to run fifty metres to the clock and fifty metres back to the board each time they made a move.

In addition to this perhaps redundant synchronised swimming judges could be retrained to sit on the side and award points for the aesthetic value of the board position from time to time.

:hmm:

eclectic

1min_grandmaster
08-04-2004, 08:54 AM
I consider chess to be a sport, because my definition of a sport is as follows:

1) It is played to a set of rules that is agreed internationally, played internationally and run by an organising body
2) It involves direct competitive action between participants
3) The primary objective of the activity is for the purpose of competition

So, defn 1) means that you can't just have any activity that anyone can make up as being a sport. Chess no doubt fits this defn.

Defn 2) means that the competitors are directly 'taking on' each other, directly influencing each other's actions. For example, I don't consider golf and figure skating to be sports because the competitors don't really compete against each other, they don't directly influece each other's actions. They play against the course, or to perfect their routine, etc. Note that I also don't consider racing, or other similar forms of comparisons as sport, unless the race involves direct influece between competitors (e.g. road cycling, where you must use positioning, etc). This defn is I feel a vrey important defn of a sport, but I'm sure many will disagree. This is why I consider chess to be a sport, it involves great competitiveness between the two players.

Defn 3) is important so as to exclude things like war, where the primary purpose is to promote political ideas. The whole point of two football teams playing each other is only to beat each other. They may get fitness as well, money, etc, but really, the main point is simply to compete against each other.

I don't include the requirement of considerable physical activity (which I distinguish from mental activity, although they are linked) because I feel the whole purpose of a sport is to compete, not to involve physical activity. That is why I have defns 2) and 3).

I think I am right when I say that sport actually came about because people (mainly males) had an urge to compete, to exercise that natural part of their characteristic. Most sports came about at a time when men were no longer needed to do other things that allowed them to compete. For example, farming meant that there was no need for hunting. The promotion of peace meant that men were not needed to constantly battle one another. Hence sport's primary purpose is to compete.

But everyone has their own definition of a sport, and that is fine. As long as people are consistent, and don't simply think that sport must contain a strong physical element without justifying it.

jay_vee
08-04-2004, 09:50 AM
imho, your definition of sport doesn't quite cut it.
According to defn.1, rugby is a sport, whereas aussie rules football is not (unless of course it was played in some other country, at which point the very same activity suddenly turned into a sport...)
According to defn.2, short distance running such as the 100m dash is not sport, whereas longer distances are?
In both cases, I would think that both activities should be on the same side of the sport - non sport divide.
I guess, I can agree with defn.3 to some extent, but does that mean, some activity loses its status as sport, if I only do it for fun?

Also, poker is played internationally, in direct interaction, and the main point is competiton (albeit measured by the size of the heap of money in front of you...). So is poker a sport?

All in all, I think, most definitions of sport are just too narrow. One approach I liked was in a diploma thesis by a german student some ten years back (a diploma is somewhere between honours and masters, I suppose). It would check the activity to be considered a sport against a list of (some 24) characteristics, and to be considered a sport, an activity would have to fulfill most (like 20) but not neccessarily all. iirc, chess scored 23, whereas (european) football scored a bit less :-). That approach just gives you more flexiblity with the peculiarities (does that word make sense there? - sorry, not my native language.) of some activities, and doesn't rule anything out, just because it doesn't quite fit the norm. Now, if I could only find the text of that thesis somewhere...

And finally, yes, chess is a sport - and more! :-)

1min_grandmaster
08-04-2004, 12:29 PM
Australia Rules Football is a sport. It has been played in other countries (I swa in some documentary somewhere, with some organised competition). It is similar to American Football in some sense, in that they are both played internationally but the origin country is clearly the most superior nation playing the sport.

For the exact reason you stated, I don't consider things such as 100m sprint as a sport. That doesn't mean its not athletics. Nor does it mean it requires no skill, fitness, etc. I just don't see how there is any real competition between competitors other than who runs faster over a distance. You are just timing these people; the same could be achieved if one person ran a race.

I think poker is not a sport. beacuse there are so many variants to the game; rules are less defined, eg. how many rounds, ante, min + max bets, etc.

The thesis you mention is interesting, and perhaps it defines sport better than anyone has done so far on this BB, but I was attempting to define 'sport' in a simpler way, with my 3 points. That definition is fine to me, and as I have said, everyone has their own definition, which is also fine. Just so long as you don't simply say chess is not a sport because there's no significant physical activity.

1min_grandmaster
08-04-2004, 12:36 PM
I guess, I can agree with defn.3 to some extent, but does that mean, some activity loses its status as sport, if I only do it for fun?

...

And finally, yes, chess is a sport - and more! :-)

But why is it fun? Why do you want to play? And perhaps, more accurately, why do most people want to play? The main reason for playing is the competition.

Chess is indeed a sport, and other things too. That could be one reason that so many people (even chess players) are reluctant to call it a sport. It doesn't have to just be a sport, it can be art and science as well. It's hard to come up with something else that contains elements of art, science and sport in such rich quality (can anyone else come up with soemthing else, I would be interested to hear). That's why I think chess is beautiful.

Trent Parker
08-04-2004, 02:41 PM
Australia Rules Football is a sport. It has been played in other countries (I swa in some documentary somewhere, with some organised competition). It is similar to American Football in some sense, in that they are both played internationally but the origin country is clearly the most superior nation playing the sport.

For the exact reason you stated, I don't consider things such as 100m sprint as a sport. That doesn't mean its not athletics. Nor does it mean it requires no skill, fitness, etc. I just don't see how there is any real competition between competitors other than who runs faster over a distance. You are just timing these people; the same could be achieved if one person ran a race.

I think poker is not a sport. beacuse there are so many variants to the game; rules are less defined, eg. how many rounds, ante, min + max bets, etc.

The thesis you mention is interesting, and perhaps it defines sport better than anyone has done so far on this BB, but I was attempting to define 'sport' in a simpler way, with my 3 points. That definition is fine to me, and as I have said, everyone has their own definition, which is also fine. Just so long as you don't simply say chess is not a sport because there's no significant physical activity.

Under your definition is Gaelic Football a sport?

Trent Parker
08-04-2004, 02:47 PM
Matthew. I will start the ball off with a definition.
A organised compeditative activity, governed by an agreed set of rules that requires some physical skill to undertake it.
Maybe a little broad in some ways so I am sure someone can improve on it.

Interestingly I once had a discussion with a fromer Russian who stated chess was a sport but criket most definitely was not. Also party to the conversation was a person with Serbian or Croatian or something similar said it was a sport, but a person with Japanese background was addament it wasn't.
Scott

I regard chess as a sport. I think chess fit the above definition [B]Including the physical section. I cannot remember where i read it but apparently a chessplayer's heart rate can increase up to that of a competitive sportsperson (in competition). I will research this and see if i can find a link.

jay_vee
08-04-2004, 02:59 PM
Australia Rules Football is a sport. It has been played in other countries

Hmm, I didn't know that :-). Anyway, the main point I was trying to make was, that it shouldn't matter, whether or not it's played in more than one country. I guess, I could agree to your defn.1 if you left out the reference to "international".


I think poker is not a sport. beacuse there are so many variants to the game; rules are less defined, eg. how many rounds, ante, min + max bets, etc.

Well, there are standard variants, though. But okay, I know little about poker. So let's pick another card game, Skat. That's a threeplayer card game originally from germany. There is an international federation, international standard rules, it involves lots of interaction and competition is the primary objective. Still - it's definitely not a sport, but a card game! And it is possible to draw a hand of cards that it's just impossible to win with, no matter how skilled you are. (Sorry, I realize this game may not be known to you, but take my word for it :).) The same probably hold's true for scrabble or similar games.

No, I think your set of definitions needs one more:
4. Chance (drawing cards, rolling dice, etc.) must not be an important aspect of the activity.

The 'important' should allow for things like a coin toss to decide who get's to go first, or maybe the wind or ground conditions influencing which way the ball bounces.

And I'm still having a hard time to see why 100m sprint is not sport, but 400m sprint is. But we may just have to agree to disagree on that one :-)

Spiny Norman
23-12-2004, 08:11 AM
After receiving a great tip from Libby (thanks Libby!) I paid a visit to the Australian Sports Commission website and looked into their Club Development Program. There's some very useful content, but more than that, I believe it helps chess generally if we can get chess clubs to register with them and get ourselves on their radar, showing ourselves to be interested and progressive in developing our clubs to their fullest potential.

I am sure many of you attend clubs that are already registered ... but if by chance you are not I would encourage you now to consider joining. Its free:

http://www.ausport.gov.au/clubs/join.asp

I have also managed to get the ASC to include Chess as its own sports category (!). Croydon Chess Inc. (http://www.ausport.gov.au/clubs/search_results.asp?radOrgType=Sport&cmbSport=Chess&cmbState=%25&txtPostcodeStart=&txtPostcodeEnd=&cmdSubmit=Search+now) is now listed and currently, since the category has only just been added, we are the only chess club listed there.

I think it'd be good if we could get a lot more clubs to register and demonstrate to the ASC that chess clubs are worthy of their attention.

Libby: I think you'll need to contact the ASC via email or web form and get them to change your registration details into the Chess category, as will any other clubs who've previously registered there.

Denis_Jessop
23-12-2004, 03:07 PM
After receiving a great tip from Libby (thanks Libby!) I paid a visit to the Australian Sports Commission website and looked into their Club Development Program. There's some very useful content, but more than that, I believe it helps chess generally if we can get chess clubs to register with them and get ourselves on their radar, showing ourselves to be interested and progressive in developing our clubs to their fullest potential.

I am sure many of you attend clubs that are already registered ... but if by chance you are not I would encourage you now to consider joining. Its free:

http://www.ausport.gov.au/clubs/join.asp

I have also managed to get the ASC to include Chess as its own sports category (!). Croydon Chess Inc. (http://www.ausport.gov.au/clubs/search_results.asp?radOrgType=Sport&cmbSport=Chess&cmbState=%25&txtPostcodeStart=&txtPostcodeEnd=&cmdSubmit=Search+now) is now listed and currently, since the category has only just been added, we are the only chess club listed there.

I think it'd be good if we could get a lot more clubs to register and demonstrate to the ASC that chess clubs are worthy of their attention.

Libby: I think you'll need to contact the ASC via email or web form and get them to change your registration details into the Chess category, as will any other clubs who've previously registered there.


How did you manage that? When Graeme Gardiner was ACF President he had correspondence with the ASC about recognition of chess as a sport and the answer was (in general terms) that the ASC does not recognise chess as a sport becuase it does not satisfy the ASC's definition of a sport. They were apparently quite firm about that. By contrast, the ACT Government treats chess as a sport and gives the ACTCA, and ACT players representing Australia overseas, considerable financial assistance.

Denis Jessop

arosar
23-12-2004, 03:20 PM
Did he actually manage to get chess recognised as a sport or just get his club listed?

AR

ursogr8
23-12-2004, 04:01 PM
How did you manage that?
When Graeme Gardiner was ACF President he had correspondence with the ASC about recognition of chess as a sport and the answer was (in general terms) ......................

Denis Jessop

Denis

Frosty is a Mexican.
A can-do Mexican. ;)

regards
starter

Spiny Norman
23-12-2004, 06:09 PM
How did you manage that? When Graeme Gardiner was ACF President he had correspondence with the ASC about recognition of chess as a sport and the answer was (in general terms) that the ASC does not recognise chess as a sport becuase it does not satisfy the ASC's definition of a sport. They were apparently quite firm about that.

Shhhh! Don't tell them (just in case they are watching this thread ... you know, the gov't thought police people who can't be mentioned).

Softly, softly, catchee monkey.

I made no approach to the "powers that be" ... I went through the contact on their website (probably a senior customer service person, something like that).

I strongly recommend that we take advantage of the window of opportunity. If we get dozens of clubs registered there under the chess category it becomes harder and harder for them to take it away from us.

Once we're entrenched then I suggest that we make a further approach to them ... but not directly through the ASC, but rather we try and get one of the politicians on-side.

I have been considering appointing a 'patron' of our chess club, almost like a number 1 ticket holder. If we get a great pollie on board that gives us a smidgeon of influence. If enough clubs get anough pollies on board, then we get a smidgeon more.

Then if one of them happens to get appointed as Minister of Sports and Recreation (or whatever) then ... and so on ... then we've got a chance of turning the public servants around to our way of thinking.

WhiteElephant
23-12-2004, 06:21 PM
I strongly recommend that we take advantage of the window of opportunity. If we get dozens of clubs registered there under the chess category it becomes harder and harder for them to take it away from us.

Once we're entrenched then I suggest that we make a further approach to them ... but not directly through the ASC, but rather we try and get one of the politicians on-side.

I have been considering appointing a 'patron' of our chess club, almost like a number 1 ticket holder. If we get a great pollie on board that gives us a smidgeon of influence. If enough clubs get anough pollies on board, then we get a smidgeon more.

Then if one of them happens to get appointed as Minister of Sports and Recreation (or whatever) then ... and so on ... then we've got a chance of turning the public servants around to our way of thinking.

Love your work! Good to see someone being proactive and doing something positive for chess. Keep us informed on the progress of your club.

W.E.

Libby
23-12-2004, 07:25 PM
Shhhh! Don't tell them (just in case they are watching this thread ... you know, the gov't thought police people who can't be mentioned).

Softly, softly, catchee monkey.

I made no approach to the "powers that be" ... I went through the contact on their website (probably a senior customer service person, something like that).

I strongly recommend that we take advantage of the window of opportunity. If we get dozens of clubs registered there under the chess category it becomes harder and harder for them to take it away from us.

Once we're entrenched then I suggest that we make a further approach to them ... but not directly through the ASC, but rather we try and get one of the politicians on-side.

I have been considering appointing a 'patron' of our chess club, almost like a number 1 ticket holder. If we get a great pollie on board that gives us a smidgeon of influence. If enough clubs get anough pollies on board, then we get a smidgeon more.

Then if one of them happens to get appointed as Minister of Sports and Recreation (or whatever) then ... and so on ... then we've got a chance of turning the public servants around to our way of thinking.

I firmly believe it's about not putting the cart before the horse.

People within chess know all about it and think they have some huge and significant activity/sport. Until my daughter first played - I wouldn't have known any kind of club or competition chess even existed and certainly had no idea of the numbers. I came from a sports background where I really would have had a bit of a giggle at the prospect of chess poking it's nose into the sport & rec arena.

If nobody knows you exist - really, really exist - then you'll never get media or sponsorship or money or recognition. It's up to chess to put itself into the contest, not wait for someone to invite you.

That's why ACTJCL was registered with the Club Development Network. And I found out about the Network by attending a Club Development Day run by ACT Sport & Rec - giving us tips on volunteers, child protection, fundraising, admin etc. But most importantly providing another opportunity for me to appear in the Sport & Rec community in the ACT on equal terms with other sports. They are so used to seeing us now that we are losing novelty value. The new kid on the block this time was ACT junior fencing. I almost have credibility!

I found out about the Club Development Day because we registered online for the Sport & Rec email newsletter so we know when grants, awards and "development" activities are on the go.

I think you'll find most state govt "Sport & Rec" depts affiliate with programs like "Thanks Coach" where you can nominate coaches, volunteers & officials for special thank you certificates. Not because we all want the certificate (although it never hurts to say "thank you") but because we had about 20 chess people nominated for one and the Sport & Rec girl said to me "I never knew chess was so big - we've had so many of you nominated."

We nominate ourselves each year for ACT Sport & Rec Industry Awards. We won $500 for "Innovation" last year. But - more importantly - we get invited to the presentation lunch with the pollies, the media and the sports admin people. And they know who we are. They even plonked Jenni & I next to the ABC media guy this year and we happily monopolised his time and Jenni ended up with an ABC radio interview about chess.

We are never going to rival the Brumbies or the Raiders or even "Canberra's Kangaroos" (must make old Nth Melb supporters cringe) but we do have a profile within Sport & Rec ACT and the more you build on that, the harder it is, as Frosty suggests, to ignore or exclude you. It's an invasion by stealth. Instead of assuming you are ineligible and don't meet criteria, you have a toehold in the door by already being familiar to the people within the department.

It won't suddenly make a bucket of money appear but it requires fairly small efforts to build networks with the Sport & Rec people. We don't ask for special consideration or act like we belong in a special category - we just act like we belong and often that will lead to the people at the other end drawing the same conclusion.

Who cares if chess is a sport or not a sport? You guys don't even seem to know what you want on that score. But you do know you want money for the Olympiad and money for prizes and money for development so you have to find ways to get yourself into the networks and amongst the people where that might have a chance to happen.

And we have a pollie for a patron. ACT chess kids even made it into the ACT Hansard last year. He's just in opposition at the moment (local govt) which I have a problem with because I'm probably not likely to vote him into government. Might just have to sacrifice too much for chess if I did.

ursogr8
23-12-2004, 08:52 PM
I firmly believe it's about not putting the cart before the horse.

People within chess know all about it and think they have some huge and significant activity/sport. Until my daughter first played - I wouldn't have known any kind of club or competition chess even existed and certainly had no idea of the numbers. I came from a sports background where I really would have had a bit of a giggle at the prospect of chess poking it's nose into the sport & rec arena.

If nobody knows you exist - really, really exist - then you'll never get media or sponsorship or money or recognition. It's up to chess to put itself into the contest, not wait for someone to invite you.

That's why ACTJCL was registered with the Club Development Network. And I found out about the Network by attending a Club Development Day run by ACT Sport & Rec - giving us tips on volunteers, child protection, fundraising, admin etc. But most importantly providing another opportunity for me to appear in the Sport & Rec community in the ACT on equal terms with other sports. They are so used to seeing us now that we are losing novelty value. The new kid on the block this time was ACT junior fencing. I almost have credibility!

I found out about the Club Development Day because we registered online for the Sport & Rec email newsletter so we know when grants, awards and "development" activities are on the go.

I think you'll find most state govt "Sport & Rec" depts affiliate with programs like "Thanks Coach" where you can nominate coaches, volunteers & officials for special thank you certificates. Not because we all want the certificate (although it never hurts to say "thank you") but because we had about 20 chess people nominated for one and the Sport & Rec girl said to me "I never knew chess was so big - we've had so many of you nominated."

We nominate ourselves each year for ACT Sport & Rec Industry Awards. We won $500 for "Innovation" last year. But - more importantly - we get invited to the presentation lunch with the pollies, the media and the sports admin people. And they know who we are. They even plonked Jenni & I next to the ABC media guy this year and we happily monopolised his time and Jenni ended up with an ABC radio interview about chess.

We are never going to rival the Brumbies or the Raiders or even "Canberra's Kangaroos" (must make old Nth Melb supporters cringe) but we do have a profile within Sport & Rec ACT and the more you build on that, the harder it is, as Frosty suggests, to ignore or exclude you. It's an invasion by stealth. Instead of assuming you are ineligible and don't meet criteria, you have a toehold in the door by already being familiar to the people within the department.

It won't suddenly make a bucket of money appear but it requires fairly small efforts to build networks with the Sport & Rec people. We don't ask for special consideration or act like we belong in a special category - we just act like we belong and often that will lead to the people at the other end drawing the same conclusion.

Who cares if chess is a sport or not a sport? You guys don't even seem to know what you want on that score. But you do know you want money for the Olympiad and money for prizes and money for development so you have to find ways to get yourself into the networks and amongst the people where that might have a chance to happen.

And we have a pollie for a patron. ACT chess kids even made it into the ACT Hansard last year. He's just in opposition at the moment (local govt) which I have a problem with because I'm probably not likely to vote him into government. Might just have to sacrifice too much for chess if I did.

Well done Libby.
If the 2004 Best Post offer was still running then your posts on this topic would have been my nominees.
I think of all the posts in 2004, yours are going to have the most profound effect on our chess community.

tks
starter

Spiny Norman
23-12-2004, 09:31 PM
Libby wrote LOTS of good stuff ...

Libby, well said and more importantly, well done by you and your team there. There's enough good material in your post to keep a club busy for several years. I can vouch for the validity of the approach. I have seen it work first hand with local council and am confident that skillset is transferable to building productive relationships with other levels of government.

I am likely to be in the ACT at some stage in the 1st quarter of next year. My Mum lives up your way (Palmerston, northside) and I'm going to be visiting with her at some stage. I would love to catch up for a coffee if that's appropriate and pick your brain about this stuff.

jenni
23-12-2004, 11:47 PM
While we are on this subject, there is something Libby hasn't mentioned, which is that the ACT schools chess competitions are on the schools sports calendars.

Basically primary and High schools have reps on a school sports committee and they meet a few times a year, co-ordinate things like the regional swimming and athletic carnivals etc. They also put out a calendar, which takes into account things like maths competitions, and various academic commitments and then fills up the year with various sports activities and carnivals.

There is an overall school sports Australia as well, that co-ordinates national school events.

A few years ago I approached ACT School Sport and did a presentation on chess and asked to have our school comps put on the calendar. There was a little bit of resistance, as some of the reps had trouble getting their minds around chess as a sport, however I did succeed and now we are a standard feature.

Once again this is something that could be done in every state. Once chess was accepted as a school sport all over Australia, perhaps we could then get some national recognition as a school sport - maybe even bring our ASC under them.

It is all about raising the profile. If Graeme's attempts to get us recognised immediately as a sport had been successful, that would have been great. However just because that initiative failed, doesn't mean we should give up. Little inroads by getting recognition in other smaller areas, could eventually lead to major govt recognition (and money).

Spiny Norman
24-12-2004, 07:20 AM
Did he actually manage to get chess recognised as a sport or just get his club listed?

Not really the former ... but not just the latter either. What they've done now is added Chess to the list of sports on their website in the area where you sign up for the Club Development Program.

I see it as a chink in the armour that we should ruthlessly exploit. :D If they've opened the door for us, lets get a posse and ride thru.

Denis_Jessop
24-12-2004, 01:48 PM
The important background to both Libby and Jenni's postings is that the ACT Government of both political colours has for many years been quite strongly supportive of chess and has recognised it as a sport. When you already have the government onside things are rather easier. By contrast the Australian Government/ASC have been most unhelpful in supporting chess in any way at all despite a lot of lobbying done by Graeme Gardiner when he was ACF President and so the future there is not good. I believe some State Governments are supportive and some are not but I don't know to what degree approaches have been made to the recalcitrants.

Denis Jessop

Libby
24-12-2004, 02:25 PM
The important background to both Libby and Jenni's postings is that the ACT Government of both political colours has for many years been quite strongly supportive of chess and has recognised it as a sport. When you already have the government onside things are rather easier. By contrast the Australian Government/ASC have been most unhelpful in supporting chess in any way at all despite a lot of lobbying done by Graeme Gardiner when he was ACF President and so the future there is not good. I believe some State Governments are supportive and some are not but I don't know to what degree approaches have been made to the recalcitrants.

Denis Jessop

I think the other difference in the ACT is that our "government" is a little more like a glorified council. Although that is changing. I don't know how that affects things within the bigger states but certainly I think the approach works equally well at almost every level. Tuggeranong Chess Club is an affiliated sports club at the Vikings Rugby Union Club. If the current administration had the desire, time or personnel, they could be more active in the Vikings Sports Council where heightened visibility can translate to money, publicity and even nominating players for their awards nights. They also send out a mailbox flyer (6 pages, glossy) advertising the Vikings Club 1/2 dozen times a year. Within that they will include a little blurb about their affiliates and photos if you supply them. I supply said photos & blurb and we are likely to feature for the second time shortly. That's totally FREE publicity into the local mailboxes for a very small effort.

I don't know that I am promoting an approach that relies heavily on the support of a particular department or body. You'll always find a brick wall here and there. It's more about small and persistant forays into the arena. 50 chess clubs, 150 chess clubs registered with the Sports Commisiion's network start to be a noticeable presence.

Of course, trying to hook into the Active Australia network has proved a bit more tricky. Although the kids playing chess are overall a pretty fit and healthy looking bunch of specimans we can't quite meet their physical & anti-obesity agenda. We did try for a grant by advocating 30 mins of warm-up activities at the start of the program we wanted a grant for (run by an accredited ASC Level 1 coach - me) but that still fell a bit flat. Maybe next time I should try a warm-down as well ... or call it aerobic chess and make the kids sit on those exercise balls instead of seats.

jenni
24-12-2004, 02:39 PM
The important background to both Libby and Jenni's postings is that the ACT Government of both political colours has for many years been quite strongly supportive of chess and has recognised it as a sport. When you already have the government onside things are rather easier. By contrast the Australian Government/ASC have been most unhelpful in supporting chess in any way at all despite a lot of lobbying done by Graeme Gardiner when he was ACF President and so the future there is not good. I believe some State Governments are supportive and some are not but I don't know to what degree approaches have been made to the recalcitrants.

Denis Jessop
I think it is much easier to get state govts onside. Once all state govt have a level of recognition, then I think it will be easier to tackle at a national level.

One of the reasons why I think the school sports calendar is important is from a "get them young" point of view. If teachers get used to seeing chess on a sports calendar, then there is less resistance from them for regarding chess as a sport. Once the schools get used to talking about chess as a sport, then children will grow up with the same attitude and of course these are our future sports administrators, journalists and politicians.

That is not to say we shouldn't continue to push for recognition now at a national level and I think getting clubs listed is great. :)

However a more subversive effort to change perceptions in the long term won't go astray. This year my kids High school changed chess from "sport" to "other" in co-curricular. I am still in the middle of a guerilla warfare over that, but I have been able to use "but its on the ACT School Sports calendar" as a backup.

This is a copy of the 2004 ACT school sports calendar.

http://www.schoolsportact.asn.au/docs/2004_PSSA_Calendar.xls

This is school sports Australia website with all state websites.

http://www.schoolsport.edu.au/contact_body.htm


What I would like to see long term is chess part of the Pacific School Games, which are held every 4 years.

rob
24-12-2004, 03:03 PM
How did you manage that? When Graeme Gardiner was ACF President he had correspondence with the ASC about recognition of chess as a sport and the answer was (in general terms) that the ASC does not recognise chess as a sport becuase it does not satisfy the ASC's definition of a sport. They were apparently quite firm about that. By contrast, the ACT Government treats chess as a sport and gives the ACTCA, and ACT players representing Australia overseas, considerable financial assistance.

Denis Jessop

The WA govt also treats chess as a sport and hence CAWA does receive grant money.

Spiny Norman
24-12-2004, 04:58 PM
50 chess clubs, 150 chess clubs registered with the Sports Commission's network start to be a noticeable presence.

Exactly. Does anyone here have enough belief in this and enough clout to recommend to the ACF and/or the various state chess bodies that something be put into the email newsletters to encourage the clubs to sign up. The program is free, so it doesn't cost anyone more than 5 minutes on the 'Net ... and it might help open doors of opportunity in time.

ursogr8
24-12-2004, 07:49 PM
Exactly. Does anyone here have enough belief in this and enough clout to recommend to the ACF and/or the various state chess bodies that something be put into the email newsletters to encourage the clubs to sign up. The program is free, so it doesn't cost anyone more than 5 minutes on the 'Net ... and it might help open doors of opportunity in time.

And I think the closing date for free entry into the Telstra Yellow Pages (under Clubs) is some time in February. Locals should add this to their TO_DO list also.

Spiny Norman
24-12-2004, 08:13 PM
And I think the closing date for free entry into the Telstra Yellow Pages (under Clubs) is some time in February. Locals should add this to their TO_DO list also.

Thanks starter, I've done that ... appreciate the tip.

arosar
06-01-2005, 08:42 AM
The NZCF AGM noted that the NZOC has now recognised the chess body as an associate member. This greatly expands chess admins' ability here to seek funding opportunities.

AR

Dozy
23-12-2005, 08:33 AM
The following two items were received overnight from the Sofia News Agency. Not only does Bulgaria rate chess as a sport but chess players are "athletes".

(I think I saw a reference on the BB some time ago to the same term being used, perhaps by the Philippines [somebody might like to correct or confirm that] where a chess player's passport showed his occupation as "Athlete".)



Chess King Crowned Bulgaria's Top Athlete of 2005

Sports
Chess King Vesselin Topalov received yet another crown after being elected Bulgaria's Athlete of 2005.

In an emotional address to President Georgi Parvanov, athletes, sports journalists and guests attending the solemn ceremony on Wednesday, Vesselin Topalov announced he donates his prize to the fund-raising initiative Bulgarian Christmas.

Closely followed in sports successes were Bulgaria's top wrestlers Nikolay Gergov and Armen Nazaryan, whose national coach Bratan Tsenov earned the recognition of Coach of 2005.

A place at Top 10 of Bulgarian sports in 2005 have been granted to sumo champion Kotooshu, sprinter Ivet Lalova, swimmer Peter Stoytchev, boxer Alexey Shaidulin, tennis player Sesil Karatantcheva, rowing duo Rumiana Neykova and Miglena Markova, and wrestler Serafim Burzakov.

And from the same source, referring to tennis player Sesil Karatantcheva's inclusion in the top ten:

Hope This Media Fuss with Sesil Soon Over - President

Point of View
I do hope that this media fuss with our young tennis starlet is soon over, Bulgarian President said.

He delivered Wednesday a warm address to Sesil Karatantcheva who found place in Top 10 Bulgarian Athletes of 2005.

The 16-aged hopeful of this country appearing shining and glamorous at the official ceremony dedicated to the annual awarding of Bulgaria's best performing sportsmen over the elapsing year.

Bulgarian President greeted winner Vesselin Topalov who "made the world talk about Bulgaria in a different way, showed a beautiful playing and brilliant strategy that brought back romantics to chess".

Referring to Topalov's decision to donate his prize for Christmas donations to Bulgarian kids, Georgi Parvanov noted that "Topalov showed he was not only a great sportsman, but also an extraordinary personality".

More than BGN 1 M have been collected so far under the Bulgarian Christmas campaign, the presidential press office announced earlier the same day.

arosar
23-12-2005, 11:07 AM
The following two items were received overnight from the Sofia News Agency. Not only does Bulgaria rate chess as a sport but chess players are "athletes".

You read that in my blog in reference to Jesse Sales.

AR

MichaelBaron
30-10-2006, 05:57 PM
If you enter a tournament..It means you are about to engage into the "SPORT of Chess"

arosar
30-10-2006, 07:03 PM
Hey Michael....did you see the special report on Russia in The Great Outdoors show? I must say, your country is truly beautiful.

AR

MichaelBaron
30-10-2006, 11:01 PM
Hey Michael....did you see the special report on Russia in The Great Outdoors show? I must say, your country is truly beautiful.

AR

Thx. I have not seen the report but I assume it was all about Russian winter. One thing i miss in Aus is snow:hmm:

Richard Blake
05-05-2008, 09:21 PM
Many of you are not going to like this, but I am genuinely trying to help.

As well as being a chess player, I am also a cryptic crossword enthusiast: in fact I make them up (for Mensa).

I am therefore very interested in words, especially the meanings of words.

"Sport" in common parlance means, without doubt, a competitive activity where the competitive essence arises, at least to some extent, from some movement or movements of the body, whether it be with respect to their speed, their strength, or the degree of skill used by the brain in controlling them; or any combination of these.

Chess clearly does not conform to this definition, and so, like bridge and scrabble, it is, in common parlance at least, NOT a sport; and I maintain that it is deceitful and even vexatious to assert that it is. Like bridge and scrabble, it is correctly referred to as a game. In sports-mad Australia, this may indeed sound demeaning, but we have to accept facts!

In fact it should be obvious that asserting that chess is a sport in order to obtain funding from any possible sponsor is likely to be counterproductive. When potential sponsors are lobbied by people for funds on the basis of something that, at least according to the general population, is not true, they are likely to be fearful, that if they pay out money, they will be subject to severe criticism from the people to whom they are responsible for the proper use of that money. More than that, they may simply become irritated by people who appear to be talking nonsense! And more than that, they will fear that bridge, and scrabble, and a host of other games, will quickly want to be also called "sports", and the situation will become ridiculous.

The reason why our Governments should fund chess (and it is overdue) is not on the basis of it being a "sport", but on the basis that it is a competitive activity of great significance, in terms of the high application of human intellect required to carry it out, and the greatness of the number of people, in Australia and in other countries, who play it and/or are otherwise involved in it.

I strongly recommend that the powers that be in the chess world change to lobbying on the basis that chess is a "competitive activity of great significance".

Cheers Richard Blake

Aaron Guthrie
05-05-2008, 09:28 PM
"Sport" in common parlance means, without doubt, a competitive activity where the competitive essence arises, at least to some extent, from some movement or movements of the body, whether it be with respect to their speed, their strength, or the degree of skill used by the brain in controlling them; or any combination of these.

snip...

In fact it should be obvious that asserting that chess is a sport in order to obtain funding from any possible sponsor is likely to be counterproductive.I could be wrong here, but if the sponsor is the government, then the common parlance meaning of "sport" isn't relevant. What is relevant are what the relevant bodies define as "sport".

Aside from this, I agree it is a red herring to worry about if chess is a "sport" or not. What is important is just if there are good reasons that the government or others should put money into chess.

Rincewind
05-05-2008, 11:17 PM
Hey Richard, welcome. You sound like an interesting guy. I also like chess and doing crosswords but have recently (last 6 months or so) stopped solving cryptics and started doing NYT crosswords.

Anyway, in principle I think your position has merit and your concerns are mostly valid. However, it is not entirely clear that fear of negative publicity is going to be a big issue. I can't see the funding for chess ever getting significant enough to cause that sort of backlash.

Secondly the fear of Bridge and Scrabble jumping on the bandwagon is irrelevant since whether the government sponsor chess as a "sport" or as a "competitive activity of great significance" the danger of bandwagon jumping is equally applicable. In fact I believe that one could argue that were the government to start funding "competitive activity of great significance", then that would open a wider floodgate than simply allowing chess to get through by way of classification as a sport.

Anyway, we all hope the government does start to appreciate the significance of chess and support it accordingly. I believe such support will filter down and strengthen chess in this country.

Kevin Bonham
05-05-2008, 11:45 PM
Many of you are not going to like this,

Hi Richard. More likely if it's not a good enough argument some of us are simply not going to be much concerned. :D


"Sport" in common parlance means, without doubt, a competitive activity where the competitive essence arises, at least to some extent, from some movement or movements of the body, whether it be with respect to their speed, their strength, or the degree of skill used by the brain in controlling them; or any combination of these.

Well, I doubt this supposedly indubitable definition (and the exclusion of chess from it) for starters.

Firstly, competitive chess does fit your definition, because the ability to move fast (and press the clock fast) is a distinct advantage in time scrambles (indeed, the faster the time limit, the more critical this sporting aspect of chess is).

Secondly, some activities that would be considered sports by many do not fit your definition.

Suppose two people enter a contest which consists of lifting an easily lifted object and, having done so (which pretty much anyone can do, so that is not part of the skill or contest, merely a starting point for it) holding the object in a certain position for the longest period of time. The man from the Clapham omnibus, if watching this, would very likely accept it as a contest of competitive physical skill and hence a sport (indeed I have seen similar things in televised sports shows now and then), but the competitive essence arises not from any "movement or movements of the body" but from the ability to avoid such movements and use strength to hold the object in its original position.

A similar ability (to a lesser extent) to avoid undesirable reactions of one's own body (such as excessive nervousness or fatigue) that might impact on brain performance is important in chess, especially at high levels, which is why many top GMs train physically to get themselves in shape for major events.

Competitive bodybuilding is also widely (though not by everyone) recognised as a sport, but it does not really rely on the competitive movement of the body so much as the competitive construction of the body. Of course exercise contributes in a very major way to this, but prior exercise can also contribute to some degree to success in chess (except in my case).

Thirdly many activities that would not be accepted as sports fit your definition. Video and pinball games clearly fit it, yet many people would exclude them - probably arbitrarily - from their view of what is "sport".


In fact it should be obvious that asserting that chess is a sport in order to obtain funding from any possible sponsor is likely to be counterproductive. When potential sponsors are lobbied by people for funds on the basis of something that, at least according to the general population, is not true, they are likely to be fearful, that if they pay out money, they will be subject to severe criticism from the people to whom they are responsible for the proper use of that money.

It isn't normal for chess organisations to use claims that chess is a sport to obtain corporate sponsorship. It is normal for chess organisations to use claims that chess is a sport to obtain funding that governments and other bodies have already earmarked as available for "sports" only. Given that governments are known to be reluctant to fund chess on any non-sport basis, the question of whether trying to convince them that chess is indeed a sport is likely to scare them off is immaterial - since we don't have anything to lose if we try and fail. Furthermore governments are not easily scared off by ambitious claims by lobbyists as they spend much of their time dealing with nothing but.

The IOC disagrees with you, and even, horror of horrors, has opened the floodgates by also recognising bridge. It seems the IOC, which is the world's most important single authority on what is or is not a sport, is not currently concerned about the situation becoming ridiculous.


The reason why our Governments should fund chess (and it is overdue) is not on the basis of it being a "sport", but on the basis that it is a competitive activity of great significance, in terms of the high application of human intellect required to carry it out, and the greatness of the number of people, in Australia and in other countries, who play it and/or are otherwise involved in it.

I totally agree and there are many other activities they should fund on the same basis. However, please get back to me if you find out a way to convince them, in this country especially, to listen to such an argument. If we try telling the Federal Government that a game in which we do not currently have an active player in the world's top 200 is a "competitive activity of great significance" to our nation, they're likely to take that with an even bigger pinch of salt than if we just tell them it's a sport and entitled to the same level of funding that a wide range of other sports get (even those we're not especially good at).

I rather like the Wittgenstinian view of definitions in which many remotely useful words do not have a single definition that can be put down in a few pithy sentences with absolute accuracy. Rather, they tend to be used by people for a range of things that have in common only that they resemble the other things for which the same word is used. Wittgenstein himself considered the impossibility of defining "game" with a single neat definition. Chess is sufficiently in the grey area that an individual can reasonably take any view on whether they consider it a "sport" or not.

WCL-Skwerly
06-05-2008, 06:01 AM
Ok, I'll jump in quick lol (against better judgement ;)).

Nice post Kevin, some very good points.

I work on a chess server, and this argument comes up quite often. I have always argued that chess could indeed be considered a sport if one were inclined to believe that any competitive activity you must train for years to be good at, have major discipline for and includes very good sized tournaments where the best of the best battle it out for a prize sounds like a sport.

The online dictionaries usually include something to the effect of "physical activity" in their definition of the word sport. Most Grandmasters of higher caliber will tell you that a regular excercize schedule, proper sleep and diet are crucial to be `on top of your game`. However, one does realize that there are GMs out there who regularly abuse their bodies and are NOT in shape at all who play very strong chess.

Also, if you include chess as a sport, you have to start looking at things like Pro Poker as well, and that just gets iffy. Therefore, I've basically dropped my view that chess is in fact a sport (at least from public view) for now, and patiently wait to see what happens with it. :)

Desmond
06-05-2008, 12:01 PM
It may even be an advantage to not be a sport when persuing certain sponsors. Some sponsors have a policy of not funding sports to maintain a certain image. Others may have an exclusive agreement with one sport where they can sponsor other activities but not other sports.

Kevin Bonham
06-05-2008, 01:23 PM
Also, if you include chess as a sport, you have to start looking at things like Pro Poker as well, and that just gets iffy.

Of course poker doesn't need to pay too much attention to getting itself classified (or not) as a sport because it is already loaded with $$$. I don't play poker but from watching it it does seem to have some sportlike elements, eg the use and interpretation of body language.

One of the advantages of the kind of definition concept I mentioned is that you don't have to follow the slippery slope to its obvious conclusion by continually going "X is a sport and Y is like X, so Y is a sport, and Z is like Y so Z is a sport (etc)", until you end up including something that very clearly isn't a sport at all. There can come a point where you just arbitrarily say "well, Z may be a fair bit like Y but this is getting ridiculous, Y is pretty marginal anyway and nobody else would include Z, so I'll draw a line here and rule it out."

While I think there is a strong argument to be made that OTB competitive chess is a sport, I would also argue that correspondence chess is definitely not a sport.

eclectic
06-05-2008, 03:39 PM
couldn't we say the defining of chess as a sport is a legal fiction?

Kevin Bonham
06-05-2008, 11:17 PM
I've moved Jono's objection to chess receiving government funding (as part of a general objection to sport at all receiving government funding) here (http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=8109).

Although the original poster did express support for chess being funded I don't think that was the main thrust of his post. While I've moved the split thread to non-chess on account of chess being merely a specific instance of Jono's view that no sport should be funded, feel free to discuss whether chess specifically should be funded by government there as well. (If the content becomes mainly about chess I will move it to a chess section.)

WCL-Skwerly
07-05-2008, 05:49 AM
While I think there is a strong argument to be made that OTB competitive chess is a sport, I would also argue that correspondence chess is definitely not a sport.

I like that sentence, pretty much sums up how I feel in a nutshell. :D

Ian Rout
07-05-2008, 02:41 PM
[Please move to the other thread if it fits better there]

I don't have a problem with chess being recognised as a sport. It has all the characteristics of sport such as rules, organised competitions, people getting excited about it, and the concept of winning and losing. The one ingredient it lacks is an overt physical component. It is however physically demanding and requires prticipants to be in good shape to compete at the top level - in this respect it's similar to something like shooting which doesn't look especially energetic but I imagine you need to be reasonably fit to do it well.

So while it's not as obviously a sport as most of these activities that are recognised it is in practice on the edge of what is called a sport. I would therefore submit that words like "vexatious" and "deceitful" are somewhat over the top, unless you need a nine-letter word, second letter e, second-last u.

On the other hand I would agree with others above that lobbying for chess to be a sport is of questionable value, as opposed to lobbying for it to be recognised as a worthwhile activity.

The only outcomes that have been produced by such efforts so far are a directive from the IOC to not even mention getting into the Olympics again for eight years or so, and the introduction of rules which could lead to the national champion being disqualified for taking cough medicine.

Moreover I have never heard any amount mentioned of how many $$$ people think would come from chess being recognised as a sport. There would still be a need to compete with bigger sports for a cut and I suspect that minority sports receive quite small grants; it may be no more than is necessary to meet the additional obligations that accrue from recognition.

Denis_Jessop
07-05-2008, 05:22 PM
I'm almost certain that we have had this debate before, What is different here is that we have Richard Baker, a professed setter of cryptic crossword puzzles, basing his definition of "sport" on "common parlance". Now, that is a pretty weak base as it is utterly unverifiable. (How many commoners did he consult?:) ) I hope that's not what he does when setting crosswords as no self-respecting setter should do that. For example, Araucaria and some other Guardian setters I think clearly use Chambers 20th Century Dictionary while the setters of the Times (London) crossword, when I did it years ago, clearly used the Concise Oxford. Were Richard to consult Chambers (20th or 21st), the Concise Oxford, Collins or the Macquarie, all of which I have and have consulted, he would find that his "definition" is not wholly accurate according to them.

As for the need for physical activity in chess, I have mentioned in the previous debate that lightning chess has a marked element of that as it's a good deal easier if you can play without knocking pieces everywhere. That is, good hand/eye co-ordination is an asset.

The whole debate is, however, fairly pointless divorced from the question of funding. Even there it's not an essential issue as there are other ways of going about things. Thus, in the ACT, chess was "treated as a sport" by the ACT Government.

As has also been said elsewhere, the ACF is pursuing this issue with the Federal Government whose Shadow Minister for Sport when in opposition told me that chess would be funded if Labor won government.

DJ

Rincewind
07-05-2008, 09:49 PM
As has also been said elsewhere, the ACF is pursuing this issue with the Federal Government whose Shadow Minister for Sport when in opposition told me that chess would be funded if Labor won government.

Well let's hope they win soon.

Basil
17-06-2008, 11:36 PM
On the chess site 'Chessdom', the reporter following the Jakovenko - Carlsen game said


Carlsen could go on playing as he had comfortably equalized but preferred to secure the tournament win. Alas, sometimes the tournament strategy prevails and the audience is a bit disappointed but let's not forget that all the elite chess players are professionals and besides being art chess is a sport as well.

No doubt stroking his chin and quite chuffed with his own wisdom. Well I for one would have liked that drippy, twitty, lefty (for sure), academic (for sure), spotty-faced geek to have uttered the same on this board.

With the gratuitous and baseless insults over, I'd like to commence my point. Anyone still here?

The commentator seeks to say that
Chess is a sport.
Carlsen's a sports professional.
It's Carlsen's right to take a professional draw under these circumstances.

But Mr Pointy Head could have gone further (if he's going to dip his unilateral toe into the chess/ sport/ draw issue.

He could have also said that

A sport develops, as do the purses, as does its critical mass, as does its success when there is ... popular appeal!

He should have signed-off his piece as "'draw-master wet', part-time half-arsed commentator with a major in 'no idea'". Give him a job with the local uni rag or Channel 10.

Sport? Really? Then entertain us!!! That's part of the 'sports deal' fools. Stop trying to have it both ways "Oh look at us sports people - doing it for our f***ing selves".

No 'pulling out of the tournament'. No 'crapo effort for the fans if you've already won the title'. Otherwise chess isn't a sport, its mast_____ion for the mind.

Is there anyone out there in chess land, for the love of all things good, who has the slightest. f***ing. idea. of. commercial. f***ing. reality?

You people are the thickest. most. slow-witted. commercial. drop-kicks. I. have. ever. had. the. misfortune. to. associate. with.

-----------------------

OK. Carry on! :whistle:

Basil
17-06-2008, 11:45 PM
Ahem, would he have won the title had he lost that game? :uhoh: If I have jumped the gun, I'll sneak away until I can safely off-load the same diatribe in an appropriate face.

eclectic
18-06-2008, 12:04 AM
the same idiots who would wish that carlsen seek wins at any cost when a tournament victory is in hand would also wish that obama ride in an open cadillac through dallas in between his election and inauguration

Basil
18-06-2008, 12:08 AM
the same idiots who would wish that carlsen seek wins at any cost ...
Who are these people you refer to to?
Where has anyone said win at any cost?
What has any of this got to do with claiming a sport on one-hand, while pursuing non-sports like approaches to same?

Bill Gletsos
18-06-2008, 12:52 AM
Ahem, would he have won the title had he lost that game? :uhoh: If I have jumped the gun, I'll sneak away until I can safely off-load the dame diatribe in an appropriate face.Prior to this round Carlsen lead by 2 ponts with 3 rounds to play.

Denis_Jessop
18-06-2008, 12:07 PM
Ahem, would he have won the title had he lost that game? :uhoh: If I have jumped the gun, I'll sneak away until I can safely off-load the dame diatribe in an appropriate face.

There's no real harm in jumping a gun. But if you jump on a gun, things can get interesting, depending on the circumstances, as always. :)

DJ

Garvinator
18-06-2008, 12:39 PM
There's no real harm in jumping a gun. But if you jump on a gun, things can get interesting, depending on the circumstances, as always. :)

DJ
Even more interesting is what happens when you jump on a gunner :uhoh: :doh:

george
18-06-2008, 02:03 PM
Hi All,

I am presenting to ACF Council at its next meeting a draft petition re : recognition of chess as a sport.

When the Council has finished with any amendments etc to the petition it will then be up to all state/territory bodies to get signatures.

Once they have all been returned to me probably in August/September ?? myself and Richard Thorne will approach the Sports Minister and chat to her and present the completed petitions.

Kindest Regards

George Howard
ACF Councillor

Ian Rout
18-06-2008, 02:20 PM
I'm a little confused about the recent items (excluding the bits about firearms). Are they discussing the proposition that as somebody wants to win a tournament it follows that chess is a sport, and if so who is on which side?

If the above proposition is accepted, does somebody painting a portrait to win the Archibald Prize prove that art is a sport?

eclectic
18-06-2008, 02:53 PM
If the above proposition is accepted, does somebody painting a portrait to win the Archibald Prize prove that art is a sport?

a few years ago the courts delicately sidestepped the issue as to whether the winning entry was in fact a draw... :uhoh:

Basil
18-06-2008, 02:58 PM
Hi Ian

I'm presuming this one is for me.


Are they discussing the proposition that as somebody wants to win a tournament it follows that chess is a sport, and if so who is on which side?

If the above proposition is accepted, does somebody painting a portrait to win the Archibald Prize prove that art is a sport?

My original (somewhat discombobulated) piece sought to make two points:

1. The writer on Chessdom made what was IMO, an ill-conceived comment. Exploring my position on that score is probably moribund because of
a) semantics
b) the core issue is covered with my second point

2. With the push to have chess recognised as a sport, IMO there is a reciprocal onus for chess players and chess administrators to conduct the game as a sport.

Chess is (should be) apparently taking stock of itself, as have many (all) serious pursuits before it. Known common elements of successful sports include financial viability, popular appeal, competition for attention with other pursuits and so forth. Sports people should and do:
• take all games seriously
• turn up for the full 90 minutes (play the full 5 days)
• not withdraw if their season isn't as good as was hoped at the half way stage
• recognise the need to give 'the crowd' value and entertainment

The case is being made (by the Chessdom guy and others) that endemic to chess is the player's right to 'go through the motions' with the wonderful facility of a grandmaster draw.

I say that the grandmaster draw is
• not a sports element
• insular to the individual (and not cognitive of the bigger picture)
• capable of retarding the growth of the game (viz Kasp - Karp Champ series called off :rolleyes: but "please do join us for the next championship which can also go for months "

a) without perhaps a result, and
b) without perhaps thrill a minute chess)
• is the right of a chess player, but contrary to our apparent objective of promoting our pursuit as a sport.

What appears above is clearly open to debate. I'm not interested. I claim I see further than the naysayers. It took cricket 100 years to wake up to its declining audiences by varying its practices. While the analogy is not exact, it's good enough.

TWO draws in every THREE games is not on FOR SPORTS whether it's cricket or chess.

There is of course a difference between being classified as a sport for the sake of funding et al (and good luck to the ACF with that) and being digested by the public as a legitimate sport - and it is on that second issue that I take umbrage and query the game's likelihood of success in its venture for broad appeal (under the sham auspices of being a sport). I am prepared to be dismissed (my care factor being zero) for the next 100 years until our grandchildren can get their act together.

The problem is global and cultural - and cannot be fixed from within (Australia) - ergo my shot Mr Chessdom.

As for the Archibald part - I missed the point, but the answer is no.

eclectic
18-06-2008, 03:27 PM
TWO draws in every THREE games is not on FOR SPORTS whether it's cricket or chess.

... or football too?

... care to suggest a compulsory penalty shootout at the end of any EPL game still drawn at full time?

Basil
18-06-2008, 03:31 PM
... or football too?
Correct.

Football took this on board and (successfully) tried to encourage teams to go for wins by
• making three points for a win - not two thereby adding greater weight to a single win (three points) over two draws (two points).
• increased the size of the goal.
• the fans encouraging a culture of winning and becoming disgruntled with dead play.


care to suggest a compulsory penalty shootout at the end of any EPL game still drawn at full time?
Penalty shootouts have been adopted (sacrilege at first (of course)) for many reasons, one of them being to dissuade overly defensive postures.

Any more extreme and ill-conceived evacuations that dumb the conversation down to infantile proportions?

Sunshine
18-06-2008, 04:01 PM
Any more extreme and ill-conceived evacuations that dumb the conversation down to infantile proportions?

I'll have a go.

Agreed draws (where there is still play on the board) are a joke at any level of chess - it should be all about competing until the end of the game.

Another thought could be to make chess a maximum move game (eg. if there is not a mate in 70 moves it is a draw). That way it could be like cricket - you still have a chance of hanging on for a draw in a hopelessly lost position.

Basil
18-06-2008, 04:04 PM
Agreed draws (where there is still play on the board) are a joke at any level of chess - it should be all about competing until the end of the game.
Oh! We are in agreement then. Well that's two of us - just a global cultural shift to go!

Ian Rout
18-06-2008, 04:06 PM
Hi Ian

I'm presuming this one is for me.


etc.
OK I think I sort of get it now. I see the thrust of the argument, which I think (correct me if I'm wrong) is that chess or any sport needs to be a spectacle and people agreeing a result without playing is a Bad Thing.

I'll go along with that but I would take issue with the suggestion (I'm not sure if you were making it) that Carlsen should not avail himself of the draw when the rules and tournament conditions permit it (I am assuming there isn't a "no short draws" condition in this tournament).

Had he been trailing, his rival could have taken a quick draw (assuming a compliant opponent); Carlsen would be unreasonably handicapping himself by taking the attitude that he would not avail himself of strategies that were available to his opponents. A prime feature of sport is that the rules are the same for both sides.

I also don't accept that that there is anything wrong with draws per se (I'm also not sure you were saying this either but some people do). The fact that chess has three results isn't what's boring (surely this makes it more interesting), it's that players can draw a game without playing it. A hard-fought draw is more interesting than any ten million Scholar's Mates. Similarly in football (soccer) - is a 3-3 all draw really less interesting than a 5-0 blowout? And can't even a 0-0 draw be exciting?

Basil
18-06-2008, 04:20 PM
I see the thrust of the argument, which I think (correct me if I'm wrong) is that chess or any sport needs to be a spectacle and people agreeing a result without playing is a Bad Thing.
Agreed.


... but I would take issue with the suggestion (I'm not sure if you were making it) that Carlsen should not avail himself of the draw when the rules and tournament conditions permit it (I am assuming there isn't a "no short draws" condition in this tournament).
Agreed.
The 'rules', be they tournament specific or the game's conduct generally (say a 'disrepute' or 'spirit of the game' clause need to be equal and and transparent. I was not calling Carlsen into account, because he cannot act in isolation, nor should he or any player be expected to.


I also don't accept that that there is anything wrong with draws per se (I'm also not sure you were saying this either but some people do). The fact that chess has three results isn't what's boring (surely this makes it more interesting), it's that players can draw a game without playing it. A hard-fought draw is more interesting than any ten million Scholar's Mates. Similarly in football (soccer) - is a 3-3 all draw really less interesting than a 5-0 blowout? And can't even a 0-0 draw be exciting?
Agreed. Well said. Draws are fine in their purest form - the two sides genuinely can't be split on the day. I would also include the validation and appreciation of 'game saving resources' against attacker's oversights from winning positions.

That's three of us - just a cultural global shift (minus three!) to go.

Garvinator
18-06-2008, 04:20 PM
I also don't accept that that there is anything wrong with draws per se (I'm also not sure you were saying this either but some people do). The fact that chess has three results isn't what's boring (surely this makes it more interesting), it's that players can draw a game without playing it. A hard-fought draw is more interesting than any ten million Scholar's Mates. Similarly in football (soccer) - is a 3-3 all draw really less interesting than a 5-0 blowout? And can't even a 0-0 draw be exciting?
I agree with Gunner in almost everything he has said and have stated it previously.

Ian, is your point best summarised as: it is not the end result that really matters, but how that result came about.

Ian Rout
18-06-2008, 04:37 PM
Ian, is your point best summarised as: it is not the end result that really matters, but how that result came about.
Partly, but the result is also interesting. Just that's it's not the only interesting part.

Sunshine
18-06-2008, 04:57 PM
Partly, but the result is also interesting. Just that's it's not the only interesting part.

Draws are definitely a valid chess result when a complete game has been played.

But Agreed draws often happen in unbalanced positions - just where it is getting interesting. At the elite level where there are spectators it is ridiculous - the players just stop because someone might lose if they play on.

eclectic
18-06-2008, 05:05 PM
oh to please the mob ... er ... i mean ... spectators ... :whistle:

Basil
18-06-2008, 06:15 PM
oh to please the mob ... er ... i mean ... spectators ... :whistle:
I'm rating your value to this thread as strongly as I rate your political commentary.

eclectic
18-06-2008, 06:31 PM
I'm rating your value to this thread as strongly as I rate your political commentary.

your compliment is much appreciated ... i really mean that ... sincerely ... :confused:

Kaitlin
18-06-2008, 06:44 PM
Chess is to Sport ....... as Psychology is to Science
.
.
.
If a Doctor tells someone they need to play more sport .... what could be better then chess :D

Axiom
18-06-2008, 07:26 PM
Chess is to Sport ....... as Psychology is to Science
.
.
.
If a Doctor tells someone they need to play more sport .... what could be better then chess :D
so chess is the latest evolved sport ? ! ;)

Kevin Bonham
18-06-2008, 07:50 PM
Gunner, how would you have reacted had the reporter instead written:


Carlsen could go on playing as he had comfortably equalized but preferred to secure the tournament win. Alas, sometimes the tournament strategy prevails and the audience is a bit disappointed but let's not forget that all the elite chess players are professionals and besides being art chess is a contest for financial rewards and recognition within the chess community.

?

I think the reporter erred in using the term "sport" for an action that is in some respects sport-like (the competitor aiming to secure a specific competitive outcome and prioritising that over art or entertainment) but it is in other respects un-sportlike (in particular the lack of competition in that particular game).

But is it all that different to a fast driver not trying to win the last few Grand Prix of the year because finishing 5th each race on average is all he needs to win the season?

Basil
18-06-2008, 08:56 PM
Gunner, how would you have reacted had the reporter instead written:


Carlsen could go on playing as he had comfortably equalized but preferred to secure the tournament win. Alas, sometimes the tournament strategy prevails and the audience is a bit disappointed but let's not forget that all the elite chess players are professionals and besides being art chess is a contest for financial rewards and recognition within the chess community.

Kev, I had two reactions to the initial post:

1. The invoking of the sports idea and its mishandling.
2. The Grandmaster Draw idea - a pet peev.

The first, loosely handled in his position of uncontested commentary certainly flared the second.

In your example, the mishandling of the sport idea is gone, so the reaction of OTT exasperation doesn't exist. That leaves us with the idea of financial reward and recognition. My reaction to that is:

• Yes, top chess players are all of those things. To my mind, that set of elements is more akin to professionals in many walks of life rather than competitors; say common enough to your field or Denis'.
• As described by you, they relinquish a claim that they are 'putting back in' "for the whole season", another element `I believe is endemic to sports people and bodies.
• Nothing's changed, and nothing deserves to (with respect to the hope and aspirations of we patzers and no doubt the elite themsleves).

Although it might not enter their collective puny (external to chess) minds, they would be playing for greater recognition, greater purses and greater reward if they didn't collectively accept the Grandmaster Copout as a legitimate option.


But is it all that different to a fast driver not trying to win the last few Grand Prix of the year because finishing 5th each race on average is all he needs to win the season?
I appreciate the difficulties in finding analogies, but I would say there is a significant difference.


• Drivers simply do not NOT front (not that you have suggested that).
• Drivers do attempt to win AFAIK, but perhaps taking slightly fewer dangerous risks, if the championship is in the bag.
• Drivers don't coast through the last race once the championship is won or finish last simply because they are forced to go through the motions.
• Drivers do not have result order pre-arranged.*

* It does occur but is penalised by both industry and the judicial system.

Kevin Bonham
18-06-2008, 09:11 PM
• Drivers simply do not NOT front (not that you have suggested that).

Carlsen fronted, even if it was only to play for a draw. (If you're talking about the need for chess to crack down on unauthorised withdrawers, that's another thing, and one I agree with!)


• Drivers do attempt to win AFAIK, but perhaps taking slightly fewer dangerous risks, if the championship is in the bag.

In the bag's one thing, almost in the bag's another. In the almost-in-the-bag situation I have usually seen drivers take a very conservative approach until the title is secured. I forget who it was but one team in V8 Supercars a few years back even said if they were sitting second at Bathurst of all places they would not take risks to go for the win and jeapordise the championship!

Carlsen's situation is also an almost-in-the-bag one; it was still possible for him to be passed if he loses some games when he took the draw yesterday. Even now it is mathematically possible (though he has to lose two and have someone else win two, I think.)


• Drivers don't coast through the last race once the championship is won or finish last simply because they are forced to go through the motions.

Again not relevant to the Carlsen case because the tournament is not yet won for Carlsen. (It's true that some players will play meaningless draws if they are two points ahead with one game to go, but in that case with the outcome decided any kind of game will be an anti-climax of sorts anyway.


• Drivers do not have result order pre-arranged.*

Broadly the same as chess. There are rules against it in both, there is policing in both, the policing is woefully ineffective in both, and it probably still goes on in both - just not as much as people think (in both!)

Basil
18-06-2008, 09:37 PM
Kevin,

• I've made it clear my beef is not with Carlsen, but with the culture.*
• I'll pass on any further motor racing analogy dissection if that's OK with you. You make some good points, but I believe its pursuit (the analogy) is ultimately not valuable to the discussion (IMO only of course). The main issue behind the avoidance, FWIW is the preponderance of GM draws proportionate to any soft drives that may be proven to exist, quite apart from the degree of softness.

As for the issue of 'almost in the bag', I acknowledge that I may have jumped the gun, and retrospectively reserved my pedestal offering accordingly!

With the issue of the mishandling of the sportsmanlike elements gone from our discussion, I retain my beating drum posture over the Grandmaster Draw being anathema to the development of the game.

I appreciate my position can be countered, and if so, I invoke the football analogy viz draws. Without the aforementioned changes which fostered results, football would still have been played, and footballers would still have been paid and crowds would still have no doubt turned up to watch - BUT all to a lesser degree.

As for an attendance of little more than 1,000 people at a cricket test match ...

*The culture change which I crave will eventually come about when a Carlsen (a la Fischer) speaks out and takes a few visionary GMs with him. Of course, at that time FIDE may well get behind the movement, our chess friends at Chessdom might start reporting same and my entire line will seem like such common sense :wall:

Garvinator
18-06-2008, 09:55 PM
Gunner,

I think one of the main issues here is how to legislate against the practice that you are advocating.

It is not enough just to say, STOP DOING IT !!!!

Many different attempts have been tried, some with more success than others. But they all have flaws.

I am sure you noticed all the discussions regarding short draws from the recent Doeberl tournament and thread.

Aaron Guthrie
18-06-2008, 10:01 PM
The culture change which I crave will eventually come about when a Carlsen (a la Fischer) speaks out and takes a few visionary GM with him.

I think Toapalov has been supportive of Sofia rules. Just from memory, no cite. (The quote I remember was something like "I liked sofia rules so much I just play like that in every tournament now".)

Anyway I take it your point is just; for chess to be successful commercially it needs to do more than just hold competitions, it needs to hold entertaining competitions.

Just on the "sport" issue, to me sport qua sport is just a competition of some sort. And so what I see the other sports doing is making their competitions more entertaining. That is to say, they have recognised that they are not simply a sport. This is just a semantic point so it is not all that important.

Basil
18-06-2008, 10:07 PM
I think one of the main issues here is how to legislate against the practice that you are advocating.

Stepping stones. I believe a will has to be created first. When dealing with cultural shifts (especially hard-wired ones where the roots of dissension are located within ideas of authority vs individualism), progress is seldom made by looking down the tunnel and selling the idea and the solution at the same time. The issue is simply too confusing and confused.

All I seek to do is to create the realisation within the chess community that the way forward is for its players and administrators look objectively at the product, as opposed to defending a player's right in an entirely insular, legal fashion - almost as an end in its own right. I have similar convictions on the clothing standard issue.

Further, none of this can change while chess is not setting benchmarks for itself. If it were competing with bridge for funding or television rights, you can bet your bottom dollar, all this highbrow rot would simply dissipate in moments.

That benchmarking is not the case, and is unlikely to be the case in the foreseeable future, and so this entire discussion remains in the realms of semantics, academia and vagaries. Perfect for chess, wouldn't you say!


It is not enough just to say, STOP DOING IT !!!!
True. But my rationale for not conjoining implementation is explained above.

Basil
18-06-2008, 10:18 PM
Just on the "sport" issue, to me sport qua sport is just a competition of some sort. And so what I see the other sports doing is making their competitions more entertaining. That is to say, they have recognised that they are not simply a sport. This is just a semantic point so it is not all that important.
Not at all semantics. I think you make a good point. There would be a basic definition (which I'm not going to rehash here), but certainly there's the competing aspect - and that may be sufficient - for say funding purposes.

However, I seek to talk in terms of modern, viable sport and therefore include the elements that I have cited previously.

Kevin Bonham
18-06-2008, 10:37 PM
You make some good points, but I believe its pursuit (the analogy) is ultimately not valuable to the discussion (IMO only of course).

The only reason I brought it up was just to show that there are hugely popular sports where people do not always aim to win at every stage, which casts some doubt on the idea that chessplayers not aiming to win every game is an obstacle to chess developing popular appeal as a "sport".

Actually given that I've said "stage" there, multi-day cycling classics are a far, far better example of the same thing. Only an idiot tries to win line honours every day. The typical yellow jersey contender makes no effort whatsoever to win on 80+% of stages - on these they are content with an easy day in the saddle and a finish with no time dropped - the cycling equivalent of the GM draw?


The main issue behind the avoidance, FWIW is the preponderance of GM draws proportionate to any soft drives that may be proven to exist, quite apart from the degree of softness.

Grandmasters usually draw because chess is most likely a draw with best play and these guys are very good and seldom make major mistakes such as would cause them to beat each other. So when you say "TWO draws in every THREE games is not on FOR SPORTS whether it's cricket or chess." the problem is that such a ratio of draws is likely to occur, with some fiddling around the margins, whatever you do to regulate the matter. You can change the length of the draws or what rule they occur under, but short of doing really radical things that will most likely trash the quality of the game, you're unlikely to make a major dent in the ratio of draws.

And there is a relevant difference here between cricket and chess. Two draws every three games is not on for Test cricket because Test cricket goes for five days and that's a heck of a lot of time invested if there's no result (the small proportion of draws that are actually great games with a draw a fitting result excepted). The longest chess games are shorter than a one-day match, and also viewers are often watching several games at once. The spectator letdown factor isn't quite the same.


I appreciate my position can be countered, and if so, I invoke the football analogy viz draws. Without the aforementioned changes which fostered results, football would still have been played, and footballers would still have been paid and crowds would still have no doubt turned up to watch - BUT all to a lesser degree.

So 3-1-0 (for example) works in soccer. It doesn't seem to have caught on in chess thus far. I'm not sure it will either.


As for an attendance of little more than 1,000 people at a cricket test match ...

Well, pathetic attendances at Test matches are still happening now, are they not, even in this era where draws are a rarity and everyone scores at six zillion runs per over? So it wouldn't seem like the draw problem there has much to do with it.

CameronD
18-06-2008, 10:45 PM
The problems of chess are basically identical to football in the early late 70s. Boring games where the home team tried to win and the home team just played for the draw, resulting in low gates and uninspiring play. Their solution was to eencourage attacking plays by changing the points to 3-1-0.

Chess has the problem where its too easy to draw and the rewards for winning and losing games aren't great. Changing the point system to 3-1-0 in chess would require the players to avoid dull lines if they want to make a living from the games and win prize money. Hard exciting draws will still occur and many will say its wrong for them just to get a point, I have 2 responses. 1) Major tournaments last 11-13 rounds and the best attacking players will rise to the top in almost all cases.
2) Tough, everything in life is not fair.

The rule change isn't about getting rid of draws, just encourage aggressive chess where players wont settle for draws after 30 moves. The sofia rule has to many loopholes and openings that are a forced draw in 20 moves. instead of forcing players to continue, this will encourage them to, lest they fall behind by drawing to many games.

I also believe that this ratio should affect ratings. I find it more then 3x easier to draw a game then win it.

Basil
18-06-2008, 10:50 PM
The only reason I brought it up was just to show that there are hugely popular sports where people do not always aim to win at every stage
Fair enough.


... which casts some doubt on the idea that chessplayers not aiming to win every game is an obstacle to chess developing popular appeal as a "sport".
Disagree. For reasons of degree. Cited Kasp - Karp and draw-masters. I believe there is a draw culture endemic to chess. I don't believe there is a soft ride/ drive culture in racing.


Grandmasters usually draw because chess is most likely a draw with best play and these guys are very good and seldom make major mistakes such as would cause them to beat each other.
Disagree. I believe I and others have discussed this elsewhere more than sufficiently. I'm not inclined to repeat here. I'll note that I'm not trying to refute your position with my answer - I'm simply not inclined to contest it here.


So when you say "TWO draws in every THREE games is not on FOR SPORTS whether it's cricket or chess." the problem is that such a ratio of draws is likely to occur, with some fiddling around the margins, whatever you do to regulate the matter. You can change the length of the draws or what rule they occur under, but short of doing really radical things that will most likely trash the quality of the game, you're unlikely to make a major dent in the ratio of draws.
Agreed - on its face. Garvin was going here as well. I'd refer you to my answer to him for my opinion on that issue.


So 3-1-0 (for example) works in soccer. It doesn't seem to have caught on in chess thus far. I'm not sure it will either.
Don't know. Strange things happen over time. I'm not proposing it here.


Well, pathetic attendances at Test matches are still happening now, are they not, even in this era where draws are a rarity and everyone scores at six zillion runs per over? So it wouldn't seem like the draw problem there has much to do with it.
Ahem. I think you might have things a little discombobulated there. Join the club!!!

Kevin Bonham
18-06-2008, 10:58 PM
Disagree. For reasons of degree. Cited Kasp - Karp and draw-masters. I believe there is a draw culture endemic to chess.

In WC matches it's a problem - the hassle with that being that people find any method other than a match to decide a world title unsatisfying. In tournaments though, I can't remember a time when I was seeing so many different players able to dominate high-level tournaments by stringing together a number of wins. I'm actually not seeing so much of the culture of sitting on plus-two getting draws until someone does something as I used to.


Ahem. I think you might have things a little discombobulated there. Join the club!!!

How so? Wasn't one of Australia's recent Tests watched by six West Indians and a goat, even though there hadn't been a draw between the teams for aaaages?

Basil
18-06-2008, 11:05 PM
Well, pathetic attendances at Test matches are still happening now, are they not, even in this era where draws are a rarity and everyone scores at six zillion runs per over? So it wouldn't seem like the draw problem there has much to do with it.

How so? Wasn't one of Australia's recent Tests watched by six West Indians and a goat, even though there hadn't been a draw between the teams for aaaages?

:lol: to the goat.

I was actually referring to test matches now, but that was a clarity issue of my doing and not part of the discombobulated call. Yes, most test matches these days are watched by a handful of oddballs such as Barry and that's about it.

• Draws are certainly not a rarity in Test cricket. That's part of the problem with test cricket.
• There is certainly no zillion runs an over in test cricket. The zillion runs an over has come about from the newer forms of the game.

Basil
18-06-2008, 11:10 PM
In WC matches it's a problem - the hassle with that being that people find any method other than a match to decide a world title unsatisfying.
OK. Agreed. I won't raise that one again on this issue. But I will save it for my pro armageddon dance repertoire.


In tournaments though, I can't remember a time when I was seeing so many different players able to dominate high-level tournaments by stringing together a number of wins. I'm actually not seeing so much of the culture of sitting on plus-two getting draws until someone does something as I used to.
I'm happy to defer (pro tem) to your position. I have not been observing for nearly as long as you have.

Do you believe a reduction in so-called GM draws would increase


• spectator numbers
• participation/ take-up rates
• sponsorship purses

Garvinator
18-06-2008, 11:13 PM
Do you believe a reduction in draws would increase


• spectator numbers
• participation/ take-up rates
• sponsorship purses
Clarification, are you taking a position against draws (full stop) or GM type draws and draws where the players decide to stop for no apparent reason?

Basil
18-06-2008, 11:14 PM
Clarification, are you taking a position against draws (full stop) or GM type draws and draws where the players decide to stop for no apparent reason?

Have edited original to read "so-called GM draws". Clarification here
(http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=200406&postcount=30)

Kevin Bonham
18-06-2008, 11:33 PM
:lol: to the goat.

Sadly the mention of the goat was not original, and worse still purloined from some mass media report IMMSMC. :doh:


• Draws are certainly not a rarity in Test cricket. That's part of the problem with test cricket.
• There is certainly no zillion runs an over in test cricket. The zillion runs an over has come about from the newer forms of the game.

I suspect Rincewind would be more informed than either of us on this but I am pretty sure both the win-rate and the run-rate in Test cricket have gone up considerably, perhaps even massively, compared to c. 25-30 years ago. I reckon that would apply even if you ignored the introduction of weak nations that are easily flogged, and would apply as a result of the influence of limited overs cricket on how people play (among other things).

Rincewind
19-06-2008, 01:05 AM
I suspect Rincewind would be more informed than either of us on this but I am pretty sure both the win-rate and the run-rate in Test cricket have gone up considerably, perhaps even massively, compared to c. 25-30 years ago. I reckon that would apply even if you ignored the introduction of weak nations that are easily flogged, and would apply as a result of the influence of limited overs cricket on how people play (among other things).

*** I haven't researched this at all and so please take everything I say here with lots of salt ***

I think you're right about the run rate. Regarding the win rate I'm not so sure. Certainly the recent Australian captains (Ponting and Waugh) have a lower draw rate than Taylor and I suspect Border as well. I don't have a feel for the general trend over the last few decades across all teams though.

The new forms of the game (assuming for the moment we still consider one day cricket to be a "new" form of the game) certainly have faster scoring rates than test cricket. However, even scoring rates in one-day cricket have gone up considerably in recent years. Since one days were standardised to 50 overs scores over 300 were initially reasonably rare, certainly much rarer than we have seen these days, but I don't have any hard figures on this.

With regards test cricket, the interplay between the various forms of cricket should not be ignored. There is little doubt that the introduction of a large diet of one day cricket into the international cricket player's diet has change his approach in the 5-day game which has had a numerically positive effect on scoring rates. That aside the generally high scoring rates that Australian spectators have witnessed is somewhat skewed by the Australians adopting a strategy of batting opponents out of test matches by setting high scores at phenomenal speed. So run rates like 4.5/over are not uncommon in Australian dominated matches over the last decade but they are not the general rule for test match cricket everywhere and more sedate 3 runs per over averages are more common. However the impression I have is even this is an improvement on the overall test average from say the 1970s.

Another positive for scoring rates is the introduction of new technology (bats, protective wear and the like). By and large these have assisted the batsman more than the bowler and thereby lead to easier scoring. Also the ground standardisation moves have meant that some large grounds have had ropes introduced which has likewise made scoring (of boundaries) easier.

All that being said...

I don't think draws are a huge impediment to cricket's popularity. The biggest impediment is probably the archaic and confusing rules. With many more sports available these days on TV and at schools I think kids aren't learning the rules early enough to become familiar with them and it gets to the stage where people won't bother. Cricket seems to be the sort of game you either follow from a young age or else you never do.

After that I believe people (even though familiar with the rules) find it difficult to maintain interest in a single match which goes for 5 days, even if a result is obtained on the 5th day. It just isn't instantaneous enough for sporting spectators who want the satisfaction of knowing the result of a game in an hour or two. In this sense, the one day and 20-20 forms have a marked advantage over test cricket. I suspect the popularity of 20-20 cricket will increase substantially in the next few years, although probably not with me.

Denis_Jessop
19-06-2008, 04:33 PM
There are clear dangers in drawing analogies with other sports. That with cricket is not a good one; for one thing it's a team game. Test cricket went through a period of slow scoring (though I wouldn't be so sure of the number of draws) after WW II. But in the 1930s when Bradman (and others such as Stan McCabe) was at his top nobody thought cricket was slow or dull. Also in the 1950s when NSW had almost the whole Australian test team in its Sheffield Shield side it regularly scored 400+ runs in a day, sometimes with centuries from "tailenders" like Richie Benaud and Alan Davidson plus quite a few runs from Johnny Martin. There is no doubt that one day cricket has caused batsmen to play more adventurous shots but it has also greatly improved the standard of fielding so that more runs are saved than once was the case.

These things go in phases. People tend to forget that Capablanca complained in the 1930s that chess was suffering from "draw death" such that he designed a new board to make the game supposedly more interesting though it was a total failure. (Mind you,there was nothing wrong with the game until after he lost the World Title and his style was the "draw death" style.) Then the Soviet School of Chess after WW II adopted a new approach to the game and things became interesting and even exciting again. The current whinges about draws are silly but based mostly on economic grounds now that there is big money in chess and any validity they may have applies only to top-level tournaments (compare the penalty shoot out referred to earlier which was brought in to satisfy television in the case of soccer - a replay would be financially much better for the teams but for TV revenue).

DJ

Basil
19-06-2008, 06:15 PM
Denis, I think you selectively over-simplify to fit your own position.

These things go in phases.
Quite possibly. But that doesn't detract from (or add to) the substance of anyone's position and its merits.


People tend to forget that Capablanca complained in the 1930s that chess was suffering from "draw death"...
I didn't know this. I'm pleased to note that the problem as identified is not 'new think'.


The current whinges about draws are silly
Really? Care to substantiate?


... but based mostly on economic grounds
No no no ... a deeper understanding of my position would reveal that the malcontent (which does indeed invoke economic considerations) concerns itself with the future and development of the game. The economic aspect is a strategy in achieving the objective of sustainability and growth, not an objective in its own right. The difference between the two and their causal relativity is germane.

I'll ask the same of you that I asked of Kevin:

Do you believe a reduction in so-called GM draws would increase


• spectator numbers
• participation/ take-up rates
• sponsorship purses
with a view to speeding the development of the game?

Kevin Bonham
19-06-2008, 07:42 PM
Do you believe a reduction in so-called GM draws would increase


• spectator numbers

Slightly, but not greatly. People may be more inclined to pay to go and watch chess live if they know all games will be played out or nearly so, but those doing so are insignificant compared to online viewers, who are less likely to be as concerned about the issue given that they are not actually paying anything. Also if the longer draws are still boring then people will soon realise that getting rid of short GM draws doesn't actually change all that much. A more important challenge than worrying about grandmaster draws, in terms of attracting viewers, is working out how to harness the global online audience effectively via easily accessible quality coverage and appropriate advertising. The standard of online coverage of events has been technically woeful for ages (which is strange given that it should be so much easier for chess than other sports) and, while improving, is still waaaaaay short of what it could be.


• participation/ take-up rates

Negligibly if at all. Most of those taking up the game have never heard of the world's top players, let alone how often they draw. Most of those who play the game do so for their own interest and won't stop doing so because Kramnik and Anand take the odd unofficial bye. To the extent that top players influence take-up of the game, that happens not because of how often they draw, but because of factors like nationality (the Fischer effect), age (if Carlsen is world champ at 20 there may be some kind of boom), gender (success by female players may encourage more females to take up/stay in the game) etc.


• sponsorship purses

Yes, although to what extent I could not say. Clearly this is a factor for some sponsors (eg the sponsors of the Doeberl saying they wanted to make the games go longer so online viewers had more time to be exposed to advertising.)

Sunshine
19-06-2008, 07:44 PM
Are there any other competitive pursuits where the opponents can just agree to stop at any time and split the points ?

The spectacle of most sports would be destroyed if the athletes had and took that option. Chess contests would also be improved without the agreed draw.

Kevin Bonham
19-06-2008, 07:53 PM
Are there any other competitive pursuits where the opponents can just agree to stop at any time and split the points ?

Some other board games allow this but I don't think any are particularly high profile.

The only sport I'm aware of allowing draws to be agreed at all is cricket, which allows for the slightly early calling off of games where further play is clearly pointless.

Denis_Jessop
19-06-2008, 07:54 PM
I was just making a couple pf pertinent observations to which I adhere without reservation . I hadn't read any of Gunner's stuff partly because the whole thread is looking almost as silly as the Irena Krush one and I have better things to do than read all that garbage. I might observe however that anyone who claims that draws should be all but banned (Sunshine) is a suitable case for treatment. The idea is just undistilled swill.

DJ

Sunshine
19-06-2008, 08:07 PM
I might observe however that anyone who claims that draws should be all but banned (Sunshine) is a suitable case for treatment. The idea is just undistilled swill.

Well then I must withdraw it unreservedly.

I just hope somehow I can recover your approval.

Kevin Bonham
19-06-2008, 08:16 PM
I hadn't read any of Gunner's stuff partly because the whole thread is looking almost as silly as the Irena Krush one and I have better things to do than read all that garbage.

The odd thing is that the standard of debate about the Irina Krush thing on this forum is waaaaaay above that available in many other places, as Garvin has observed. Some of the stuff on other sites about that creates a powerful argument for disconnecting everything between Mexico and Canada from the internet.

Basil
20-06-2008, 02:19 AM
I was just making a couple pf pertinent observations to which I adhere without reservation.
And they were goodies. Unfortunately entirely all but irrelevant to the discussion at hand. You did also toss in the odd unsubstantiated claim for variety (which remain unsubstantiated).


I hadn't read any of Gunner's stuff partly because the whole thread is looking almost as silly as the Irena Krush one and I have better things to do than read all that garbage.
Denis, your poor chap. Bad day? You've caught the discombobulated clown hat as well. What you have written is equivalent to:
I hadn't read Gunner's stuff ... I have better things to do than read all that garbage. Talking about begging the question. How do you know it's rot if you haven't read it? Perhaps you read just a little. If so, which part was rot? Just a soupcon; a little hint, un petit peu to whet the appetite (or at least prove you've been paying attention).


I might observe however that anyone who claims that draws should be all but banned (Sunshine) is a suitable case for treatment.
Oh dear. No-one has said all draws should be banned. Did you forget your pills today? You're inventing stuff. But hang on, not only do you have that wrong, you've actually identified someone in particular who hasn't said it! This is turning into quite the floor show.


The idea is just undistilled swill.
It is indeed. And we're back to you first offering - entirely accurate yet hopelessly nothing to do with what is being discussed.

All in all, quite a stupefying effort, Denis. Have you pinched Toosie's or Eclectic's cue-cards?

Basil
20-06-2008, 02:58 AM
Negligibly if at all. Most of those taking up the game have never heard of the world's top players, let alone how often they draw.
I certainly can't say you're wrong. I have a different take. While take-up at junior level (real kiddies) won't change much, I suspect that once in the game, the juniors turn to the elite (idols) and if they see exciting chess regularly, retention rates may increase.


Yes, although to what extent I could not say. Clearly this is a factor for some sponsors (eg the sponsors of the Doeberl saying they wanted to make the games go longer so online viewers had more time to be exposed to advertising.)
OK, to whatever degree it turns out to be true, I'd say
• we've got more cash
• slightly higher retention rates
• bung in some better dress standards (sponsors notice dress standards too, as do parents and females!)

and hey presto, we've got sport on the move! (to a greater degree than would otherwise have been the case).

Sunshine
20-06-2008, 10:29 AM
Gunner, still taking out the garbage I see.

It will probably require a highly marketable player to come along and show the way, similar to what Fischer achieved. If they can get the results, media attention and endorsements then the game will follow.

It would be even more fantastic if it could be an Australian !

Intuition
20-06-2008, 07:08 PM
Gunner, still taking out the garbage I see.

It will probably require a highly marketable player to come along and show the way, similar to what Fischer achieved. If they can get the results, media attention and endorsements then the game will follow.

It would be even more fantastic if it could be an Australian !


I guess a highly marketable player like fischer would have to be at the top and the game and controversial and/or slightly psycho and appealing to the non-chessplayer........ I doubt that arguments over dunny cam at the world championship between 2 not really liked players can really help...as for an Australian there isn't really anyone stong enough to make a significant impact

Kevin Bonham
20-06-2008, 07:11 PM
I certainly can't say you're wrong. I have a different take. While take-up at junior level (real kiddies) won't change much, I suspect that once in the game, the juniors turn to the elite (idols) and if they see exciting chess regularly, retention rates may increase.

There is no shortage of exciting chess being played. In many respects this is a very exciting period in chess history as the existence of databases forces diversity and innovation in the opening, and players are increasingly willing to find exceptions to received dogma about how to play. Exciting chess, however, does not happen in every game and will not happen in every game no matter what rule changes are brought in to try to make it do so.

Basil
20-06-2008, 10:27 PM
There is no shortage of exciting chess being played. In many respects this is a very exciting period in chess history as the existence of databases forces diversity and innovation in the opening, and players are increasingly willing to find exceptions to received dogma about how to play.
I think that's fair.


Exciting chess, however, does not happen in every game and will not happen in every game no matter what rule changes are brought in to try to make it do so.
I think that's fair, too.

Nonetheless, I believe chess will be more exciting and more marketable with the changes I have promoted. As I have said previously, I doubt there'll be a hurry up on this any time soon while there is no benchmarking.

Scorpio
23-06-2008, 07:32 PM
There is no shortage of exciting chess being played. In many respects this is a very exciting period in chess history as the existence of databases forces diversity and innovation in the opening, and players are increasingly willing to find exceptions to received dogma about how to play. Exciting chess, however, does not happen in every game and will not happen in every game no matter what rule changes are brought in to try to make it do so.
There are many things in life which are exciting, but that does not make them sports. Chess doesn't make a person sweat, so I do not think it can be regarded as a sport.

Kaitlin
23-06-2008, 08:02 PM
so is it time to have a poll => is chess a sport... then we can move onto the Q? What is Chess ?

CameronD
23-06-2008, 08:04 PM
Chess is a game, not a sport.

It should come with warning labels like cigarettes and chess anonymous.

eclectic
23-06-2008, 08:10 PM
chess is a game i s'port! :P

Kaitlin
23-06-2008, 08:20 PM
Sports developed from pretend War games.. two sides pretend battleing against each other.. or two people pretend battleing against each other.

Chess has both these qualities.

(now I have to reconsider what to vote in the polls :doh: )

Ian Murray
24-06-2008, 07:32 PM
Particularly in Australia, sport is generally regarded as physical activity requiring some athletic prowess. Let's face it, chess will not cut the mustard within the foreseeble future.

It is noteworthy that the Queensland Sport and Recreation Dept, an erstwhile financial supporter of chess, bridge etc, has this year pulled the plug on support for non-physical sports (including e.g. snooker).

Where to draw the line is certainly arguable. Shooting, for eample, is still a funded sport.

Kevin Bonham
24-06-2008, 07:51 PM
There are many things in life which are exciting, but that does not make them sports.

Agreed - my post you were replying to was just a reply to points raised by Gunner and not an attempt to contribute to the debate about whether chess is a sport.


Chess doesn't make a person sweat, so I do not think it can be regarded as a sport.

Not convinced. There are many sports where the skill is in precision of movement rather than exertion where the sweat factor would be minimal. Do dart players sweat that much? Shooters? Archers? Divers?

ElevatorEscapee
24-06-2008, 08:30 PM
I would just like to add that, indeed, chess has made me physically "sweat" at times, particularly when under great pressure... true, this is more of a nervous reaction, but it is a very physical reaction nonetheless.

The best analogy I can give to a non-chess player is the nervousness one may feel before, and during, an important exam. :)

Co-incidentally, the time limit for most "serious" games in Australia these days is a base of 90 minutes (+ 30 seconds per move), meaning that at least 3 hours will be required for a long game between two players who use all their time.

The time limit of my last university exam was 3 hours (unfortunately, I wasn't allowed the chance to get up between questions and watch how the other examinees were going!) ;)

Axiom
24-06-2008, 09:00 PM
Not convinced. There are many sports where the skill is in precision of movement rather than exertion where the sweat factor would be minimal. Do dart players sweat that much? Shooters? Archers? Divers?
true , no sweat ,
but as you say , all however involve crucial physical action, and exact precision in that physical action.
one may argue that moving pieces is physical action , but not an action reliant on exact precision.(blitz accepted !)

Chess needs to be the first of a whole new domain .
Stand on its own feet , as THE GAME , the finest game of mental skill ever devised.
I love to argue that chess is a sport , but it is this "crucial physical exaction" that seems a definitional stumbling block.(although i accept stamina as a valid component, but how much should physical fitness count as an adjunct to a mind skill ?)
Chess needs to break through the sport,art,game paradigm matrix .

Chess is demonised and victimised by successive governments .
The last thing a government wants to do is encourage and support "thinking" in the community . I mean , heaven help us, the next thing you might get is "independent thought" !!

There is a well manufactured clear force that opposes chess's rightful place as a pinnacle human endeavour.

And we all know this well.
The fear in the eyes of someone challenged to actually think.
The fear of their very own self.
The fear of these lesser mortals....

It would seem that not only does it benefit some that we are largely kept ill informed , but that pursuits of the mind should be kept on as low a rung as possible *.




*(see cultural status of scientists etc)

Kevin Bonham
24-06-2008, 09:37 PM
true , no sweat ,
but as you say , all however involve crucial physical action, and exact precision in that physical action.

But that only applies to that particular set of examples. There are other sports (probably more of the sweaty variety) where exact precision is not required if you are fast enough/strong enough/whatever. So "crucial physical exaction" is not a stumbling block at all. All attempts to exclude chess using "sports have X, chess doesn't, therefore chess is not a sport" type arguments will fail because the term "sport" is so broad that there are always sports that do not have X.


but how much should physical fitness count as an adjunct to a mind skill ?)

Another non-argument - physical fitness is a great assistance in performance at the highest level, as Soviet trainers were recognising >50 years ago.


Chess is demonised and victimised by successive governments .
The last thing a government wants to do is encourage and support "thinking" in the community . I mean , heaven help us, the next thing you might get is "independent thought" !!

All the more reason why trying to go all-out to create a profile for chess completely independent of sport in this country is very difficult.

Axiom
24-06-2008, 09:46 PM
But that only applies to that particular set of examples. There are other sports (probably more of the sweaty variety) where exact precision is not required if you are fast enough/strong enough/whatever. So "crucial physical exaction" is not a stumbling block at all. All attempts to exclude chess using "sports have X, chess doesn't, therefore chess is not a sport" type arguments will fail because the term "sport" is so broad that there are always sports that do not have X.
,you misunderstand me , i was meaning as in a last resort 'physical sport action' argument. ie . as of the group of least seemingly physical sports.



Another non-argument - physical fitness is a great assistance in performance at the highest level, as Soviet trainers were recognising >50 years ago. of course , but that might apply to a fit artist ! :rolleyes:




All the more reason why trying to go all-out to create a profile for chess completely independent of sport in this country is very difficult.
as is going down the 'sport' route ! :rolleyes:

Kevin Bonham
24-06-2008, 09:54 PM
,you misunderstood me , i was meaning as in a last resort 'physical sport action' argument. ie . as of the group of least seemingly physical sports.

So you're using a combined argument of the "all sports are either X or Y and chess is neither?" type?

I'm sure there's counterexamples there too. Arm-wrestling is primarily a contest of strength rather than precision but I doubt people raise that much sweat doing it. (At least I don't, but that's because I virtually always lose!) And I'm not sure how much sweat a downhill speed skier raises either, and I suspect if a drag racer sweats it's just because it's hot in fireproof overalls inside one of those things.

Axiom
24-06-2008, 09:58 PM
So you're using a combined argument of the "all sports are either X or Y and chess is neither?" type?my argument , is that chess can be described as neither a physical sport in the obvious way nor physical sport in the unobvious way (ie. physical precision over sweat or otherwise)


I'm sure there's counterexamples there too. Arm-wrestling is primarily a contest of strength rather than precision but I doubt people raise that much sweat doing it. (At least I don't, but that's because I virtually always lose!) And I'm not sure how much sweat a downhill speed skier raises either, and I suspect if a drag racer sweats it's just because it's hot in fireproof overalls inside one of those things.
as discussed, arm wrestling and downhill skiing are in the obvious physical category.
and with drag racing , i would say that , drag racing itself is a sport , but the drag racer is not necessarily a sportsman .I mean , he justs sits there and turns the ignition on , right ? (oh, i suppose and keeping the steering wheel reasonably straight)

Kevin Bonham
24-06-2008, 10:54 PM
my argument , is that chess can be described as neither a physical sport in the obvious way nor physical sport in the unobvious way (ie. physical precision over sweat or otherwise)

as discussed, arm wrestling and downhill skiing are in the obvious physical category.

Why should there be one single "obvious way" - there are a range of sports involving physical exertion and a range of sports involving physical accuracy (and obviously a range involving both); why should one of these be more "obvious" than another? It's not obvious to me that weightlifting is any more or less of a sport than archery, for example.


and with drag racing , i would say that , drag racing itself is a sport , but the drag racer is not necessarily a sportsman .I mean , he justs sits there and turns the ignition on , right ? (oh, i suppose and keeping the steering wheel reasonably straight)

Starting at exactly the right time (which depends on anticipation and reflex) is clearly a "sporting" skill because of its reliance on physical speed.

Axiom
24-06-2008, 11:06 PM
Why should there be one single "obvious way" - there are a range of sports involving physical exertion and a range of sports involving physical accuracy (and obviously a range involving both); why should one of these be more "obvious" than another? It's not obvious to me that weightlifting is any more or less of a sport than archery, for example.
obvious , only as in the obvious aspect of sport , it's physicality element !



Starting at exactly the right time (which depends on anticipation and reflex) is clearly a "sporting" skill because of its reliance on physical speed.
well there you go , another registering on the physical action scale.

Kevin Bonham
24-06-2008, 11:46 PM
obvious , only as in the obvious aspect of sport , it's physicality element !

But you are calling one kind of physicality (exertion) obvious and another kind of physicality (accuracy) non-obvious.


well there you go , another registering on the physical action scale.

I debunked the idea that physical action was necessary for sport status in #4 by pointing to examples of sports where the aim is to remain still!

Axiom
24-06-2008, 11:55 PM
But you are calling one kind of physicality (exertion) obvious and another kind of physicality (accuracy) non-obvious.

yes, isn't that obvious ?


I debunked the idea that physical action was necessary for sport status in #4 by pointing to examples of sports where the aim is to remain still!
but drag racing wasn't one of them !

Kevin Bonham
25-06-2008, 12:01 AM
but drag racing isn't one of them !

Of course not, but reflex reaction time is still a different type of physicality from either the exertion type or the accuracy-of-aim type of darts, archery, shooting etc. So re your obvious/nonobvious way argument, it turns out that there are at least two nonobvious ways. And on that basis, why shouldn't there be more?

Axiom
25-06-2008, 12:12 AM
Of course not, but reflex reaction time is still a different type of physicality from either the exertion type or the accuracy-of-aim type of darts, archery, shooting etc. So re your obvious/nonobvious way argument, it turns out that there are at least two nonobvious ways. And on that basis, why shouldn't there be more?
i would argue , that you're splitting hairs.
The substantive difference between reflex reaction skills , and accuracy-of-aim skills is unclear.
Regardless ,chess cannot qualify as a sport in this non-obvious group, due to the crucial nature of the precise physical action.
As i said earlier it is this aspect that draws the distinction.

Kevin Bonham
25-06-2008, 12:43 AM
i would argue , that you're splitting hairs.

Good for you. Isn't this whole argument about some bunch of mainstream-sportists and those (defeatists?) who agree with them trying to split hairs about which competitive contests are or are not sports in order to arbitrarily exclude chess from their list?


The substantive difference between reflex reaction skills , and accuracy-of-aim skills is unclear.

To me it is extremely obvious - in one case someone is taking an action as precisely as possible but can take a long time to judge their action before executing it. In the other case it is a matter of how fast a particular movement can be performed. Someone could easily be very good at the former type of skill and not good at the latter and vice versa; they are radically different kinds of skill.

And while the anticipation element in drag racing means that there is a kind of precision there, that isn't the case for all activities involving reflex action.

Axiom
25-06-2008, 12:54 AM
Good for you. Isn't this whole argument about some bunch of mainstream-sportists and those (defeatists?) who agree with them trying to split hairs about which competitive contests are or are not sports in order to arbitrarily exclude chess from their list?
but it reduces to the fundamental definition of sport ie. that it involves physical action , and that this physical action is crucial/essential to succeeding at the sport.
whereas chess has no element whereby the physical action is crucial/essential to succeeding at the game.


To me it is extremely obvious - in one case someone is taking an action as precisely as possible but can take a long time to judge their action before executing it. In the other case it is a matter of how fast a particular movement can be performed. Someone could easily be very good at the former type of skill and not good at the latter and vice versa; they are radically different kinds of skill.
there may be a difference on the time scale , but both involve reaction speed/timing , whether its the minute timing of pulling a trigger or the minute timing of turning an ignition key .ie. both should be executed at the precisely correct moment.
could you please give examples for both categories , so to more clearly define your distinction ?

Kevin Bonham
25-06-2008, 10:45 PM
but it reduces to the fundamental definition of sport ie. that it involves physical action , and that this physical action is crucial/essential to succeeding at the sport.

Again I refuted this in post 4.


whereas chess has no element whereby the physical action is crucial/essential to succeeding at the game.

This has also been refuted several times; ever been in a time scramble?


there may be a difference on the time scale , but both involve reaction speed/timing , whether its the minute timing of pulling a trigger or the minute timing of turning an ignition key .ie. both should be executed at the precisely correct moment.

Does "precisely correct moment" have anything to do with it if, for instance, you are firing a shot or an arrow at a still target? Unless you're going to say that the precisely correct moment is the moment when your aim at the target is perfect, which is circular.


could you please give examples for both categories , so to more clearly define your distinction ?

As examples of the precision-action sports I'd suggest archery and shooting (still target). (Darts, snooker and putting in golf all have a similar element but they also have more of a physical timing element too.)

I'm not sure if there's any very popular sport that depends purely on reaction time although it is very important in several. (Drag racing as mentioned is a good but not perfect example.)

Aaron Guthrie
26-06-2008, 04:10 AM
I'm not sure if there's any very popular sport that depends purely on reaction time although it is very important in several. (Drag racing as mentioned is a good but not perfect example.)Snap!

Kevin Bonham
26-06-2008, 02:07 PM
Snap!

I was actually thinking of Snap when I wrote that comment but I am unsure whether there are serious Snap competitions. Nonetheless, if there was a World Snap Championship it would be very hard to argue that Snap is not a sport.

Axiom
28-06-2008, 02:56 PM
Again I refuted this in post 4.
i read that post , but couldn't find a single example of a sport where physical action was not crucial/essential to the endeavour.



This has also been refuted several times; ever been in a time scramble? speed in moving the pieces although a crucial physical action , only occurs in faster time limits, and less so with the advent of increments. Some argument could be made that blitz chess qualifies as a sport , but normal chess , the commonly understood version of the game ,the major tournament variety ie long time limits with increments, has no crucial/essential physical action element.




Does "precisely correct moment" have anything to do with it if, for instance, you are firing a shot or an arrow at a still target? Unless you're going to say that the precisely correct moment is the moment when your aim at the target is perfect, which is circular.
i mean , that reaction speed element is similar , in that both require the reflex to react quickly whether turning the ignition on or squeezing the trigger. The cue with the former is the starters green light(external) , the cue with the latter is when in effect, the brain gives the green light (internal) to squeeze.



As examples of the precision-action sports I'd suggest archery and shooting (still target). (Darts, snooker and putting in golf all have a similar element but they also have more of a physical timing element too.)

I'm not sure if there's any very popular sport that depends purely on reaction time although it is very important in several. (Drag racing as mentioned is a good but not perfect example.)
maybe drag racers perform other crucial/essential physical actions besides fast ignition firing ? ( this is not known to me)

Kevin Bonham
28-06-2008, 03:19 PM
i read that post , but couldn't find a single example of a sport where physical action was not crucial/essential to the endeavour.

I mentioned examples where the aim is to stay still while holding something up, so the aim is not action but inaction! (A version of this is the challenge to see who can hold a very large beer mug up the longest, as seen at some European beer festivals. The "world's strongest man" series shown on Nine's WWOS a long time ago had similar events - holding a rock in place for as long as possible, for instance.)

I also mentioned bodybuilding which is widely (perhaps not uncontentiously) considered to be a sport but is more to do with physical preparation. Physical preparation is also important in absolute top-level chess and this has been known for decades.


speed in moving the pieces although a crucial physical action , only occurs in faster time limits,

Rubbish; time scrambles can and do occur at a wide range of time limits.


and less so with the advent of increments.

It's true that increments have reduced the importance of time-scrambling but time limits that lead to scrambles are still common. At elite levels the increment is often only applied in the last phase so the time scramble at move 40 still occurs in many tournaments.


i mean , that reaction speed element is similar , in that both require the reflex to react quickly whether turning the ignition on or squeezing the trigger. The cue with the former is the starters green light(external) , the cue with the latter is when in effect, the brain gives the green light (internal) to squeeze.

How is a quick reaction time important in archery? I'd expect that one's ability to aim perfectly is far more important than whether the message to let go takes .12 of a second to go from brain to hand rather than .10.


maybe drag racers perform other crucial/essential physical actions besides fast ignition firing ? ( this is not known to me)

I am not sure what skill is required in performing the burnouts before the start of each race. There are also (rare) times when skill is required to avoid accidents, or when the driver must make a decision about when to back off during a race (eg if winning easily to avoid equipment failure). Some versions have time limits where a driver can be disqualified for going too fast. But getting the start right is certainly a big part of the skill element so far as the driver is concerned.

Axiom
28-06-2008, 03:34 PM
I mentioned examples where the aim is to stay still while holding something up, so the aim is not action but inaction! (A version of this is the challenge to see who can hold a very large beer mug up the longest, as seen at some European beer festivals. The "world's strongest man" series shown on Nine's WWOS a long time ago had similar events - holding a rock in place for as long as possible, for instance.) here , the crucial/essential physical action is obvious.
it is clearly a physical action that holds up the beer mug or the rock !
your view that it is inaction rather than action is simply incorrect.


I also mentioned bodybuilding which is widely (perhaps not uncontentiously) considered to be a sport but is more to do with physical preparation. Physical preparation is also important in absolute top-level chess and this has been known for decades. the crucial/essential physical actions here , are again obvious , they are all the excercises required to build the body.




Rubbish; time scrambles can and do occur at a wide range of time limits.



It's true that increments have reduced the importance of time-scrambling but time limits that lead to scrambles are still common. At elite levels the increment is often only applied in the last phase so the time scramble at move 40 still occurs in many tournaments.
how can you have a physically demanding time scramble when you must have at least 30 or 60 secs (as per the increment) ?



How is a quick reaction time important in archery? I'd expect that one's ability to aim perfectly is far more important than whether the message to let go takes .12 of a second to go from brain to hand rather than .10. yes it is more important to aim perfectly , but the timing in synchronising the aim with the release is also important. Not sheer speed , but suitable speed.




I am not sure what skill is required in performing the burnouts before the start of each race. There are also (rare) times when skill is required to avoid accidents, or when the driver must make a decision about when to back off during a race (eg if winning easily to avoid equipment failure). Some versions have time limits where a driver can be disqualified for going too fast. But getting the start right is certainly a big part of the skill element so far as the driver is concerned. why don't they have driver-less drag racing ? :)

Kevin Bonham
28-06-2008, 05:33 PM
here , the crucial/essential physical action is obvious.
it is clearly a physical action that holds up the beer mug or the rock !
your view that it is inaction rather than action is simply incorrect.

OK, the original poster couched it as "movement" and I accept that there is a difference in meaning between his use of "movement" and your use of "action". Whether exerting effort in order to maintain a position is "action" or "an action" I will admit to be debatable, whereas doing so does certainly not constitute "movement" or "motion".


the crucial/essential physical actions here , are again obvious , they are all the excercises required to build the body.

And similarly, exercise is required to prepare the body for a prolonged top-level chess contest as has been known by Russian/Soviet trainers for over 50 years! That was my point in using the example of bodybuilding as a sport that depends on previous exercise. There are also many sports where an element of action is present but the success of previous exercise is the prime determinant of whether the action succeeds.


how can you have a physically demanding time scramble when you must have at least 30 or 60 secs (as per the increment) ?

Faulty premise on your part. As I stated such increments are not required throughout the game at all and only some leading tournaments apply them for the whole game. WCC Mexico 2007 used increments only after move 61; Topalov-Kamsky challenge match this year will be the same (I think WCC 2008 Anand-Kramnik is also the same but not certain on this). MTel Masters this year had no increment at any stage.


yes it is more important to aim perfectly , but the timing in synchronising the aim with the release is also important. Not sheer speed , but suitable speed.

Not familiar enough with the modern equivalent of bow and arrow to comment on this, but for shooting I can imagine this is only an issue if the weapon is either moving at the time of discharge, or moves and requires stabilisation as a result. In any case an event where the primary component is aiming and another component is timely use of a weapon is still different from an event where the primary component is rapid reaction speed.


why don't they have driver-less drag racing ? :)

An interesting question; as a child I expected that there could be driverless motorsport by this time (for safety reasons) and am surprised it has not yet happened. However I do know that attempts to race robots over terrain have been failures thus far, and perhaps even in drag racing there is still a lot that could go wrong.

Probably the audience would find it all more than a little bit nerdy too. Remove the human element and you may as well be racing radio-controlled cars in a supermarket carpark.

Now, is that a sport? :eek:

Axiom
28-06-2008, 06:15 PM
OK, the original poster couched it as "movement" and I accept that there is a difference in meaning between his use of "movement" and your use of "action". Whether exerting effort in order to maintain a position is "action" or "an action" I will admit to be debatable, whereas doing so does certainly not constitute "movement" or "motion".
it would be the physical action of holding the rock , requiring physical strength and stamina where im sure there is some muscle quivering movements in the effort to support the weight.



And similarly, exercise is required to prepare the body for a prolonged top-level chess contest as has been known by Russian/Soviet trainers for over 50 years! That was my point in using the example of bodybuilding as a sport that depends on previous exercise. There are also many sports where an element of action is present but the success of previous exercise is the prime determinant of whether the action succeeds. but in chess's case the excercise helps the game performance,indirectly , whereas in the body builder case it directly forms the basis of his sport ie. to create the superior body.




Faulty premise on your part. As I stated such increments are not required throughout the game at all and only some leading tournaments apply them for the whole game. WCC Mexico 2007 used increments only after move 61; Topalov-Kamsky challenge match this year will be the same (I think WCC 2008 Anand-Kramnik is also the same but not certain on this). MTel Masters this year had no increment at any stage.
i thought increments were for the whole game, i'm surprised.
and defer to you , and stand corrected.
maybe only the time scramble part of chess could be considered a sport, and arguable as to whether this constitutes such significance as to define chess itself as a sport



Not familiar enough with the modern equivalent of bow and arrow to comment on this, but for shooting I can imagine this is only an issue if the weapon is either moving at the time of discharge, or moves and requires stabilisation as a result. In any case an event where the primary component is aiming and another component is timely use of a weapon is still different from an event where the primary component is rapid reaction speed.
ok, but i would argue that the difference doesn't constitute an effective material or substantive difference



An interesting question; as a child I expected that there could be driverless motorsport by this time (for safety reasons) and am surprised it has not yet happened. However I do know that attempts to race robots over terrain have been failures thus far, and perhaps even in drag racing there is still a lot that could go wrong. like blowing up ? better driver-less then !




Now, is that a sport? :eek: :hmm: , yes i think so, as the crucial physical actions of the 'driver' directly effect the performance outcome.

Aaron Guthrie
28-06-2008, 06:21 PM
An interesting question; as a child I expected that there could be driverless motorsport by this time (for safety reasons) and am surprised it has not yet happened. However I do know that attempts to race robots over terrain have been failures thus far, and perhaps even in drag racing there is still a lot that could go wrong.Do you mean the DARPA competitions?

Kevin Bonham
28-06-2008, 07:27 PM
it would be the physical action of holding the rock , requiring physical strength and stamina where im sure there is some muscle quivering movements in the effort to support the weight.

Deliberate motions directed by the brain?


but in chess's case the excercise helps the game performance,indirectly , whereas in the body builder case it directly forms the basis of his sport ie. to create the superior body.

True, but in both cases exercise is a determinant of success. It just happens that in one case it is the overwhelming determinant and in the other a significant one but not the main one.


maybe only the time scramble part of chess could be considered a sport, and arguable as to whether this constitutes such significance as to define chess itself as a sport

Well in that case we could argue that only turning the corners in motorsport is a sport and the bit where they drive on the straight doesn't qualify. Or that golf is only a sport when they swing at the ball. Or that cricket is only a sport for the fraction of the duration of the match ... etc.


ok, but i would argue that the difference doesn't constitute an effective material or substantive difference

I think you would assert it rather than arguing it as there is actually no supporting evidence for that view.


:hmm: , yes i think so, as the crucial physical actions of the 'driver' directly effect the performance outcome.

Well, in that case, are video games a sport? Virtually everyone would say they are not, yet they certainly meet your definitions.

Axiom
01-07-2008, 09:04 PM
Deliberate motions directed by the brain?
in some way , probably .



True, but in both cases exercise is a determinant of success. It just happens that in one case it is the overwhelming determinant and in the other a significant one but not the main one.
and this i propose is the definitional guiding line , that the essential physical action directly effect the performance outcome.



Well in that case we could argue that only turning the corners in motorsport is a sport and the bit where they drive on the straight doesn't qualify. no i wouldnt as the bit where they drive straight still requires crucial and direct physical action (refer rock holder)

Or that golf is only a sport when they swing at the ball. but because the bit where they swing at the ball is essentially golf itself ! the walking between hole is a distant secondary concern

Or that cricket is only a sport for the fraction of the duration of the match ... etc.
again refer to golf eg above.



I think you would assert it rather than arguing it as there is actually no supporting evidence for that view.
i certainly would much prefer to just assert it ! :)



Well, in that case, are video games a sport? Virtually everyone would say they are not, yet they certainly meet your definitions. its the level of directness that is critical here , , like remote controlled aircraft/cars etc
i would argue that it could be argued either way ;) ,
depending on the accepted degree of direct involvement, of the crucial physical action on performance outcome.

Kevin Bonham
01-07-2008, 11:06 PM
in some way , probably .

I'm not sure; is there a physiologist in the house?


and this i propose is the definitional guiding line , that the essential physical action directly effect the performance outcome.

Why does it matter whether it is direct or indirect? Especially given that indirect effects are the lion's share of success or failure in so many sports.


no i wouldnt as the bit where they drive straight still requires crucial and direct physical action (refer rock holder)

It can't be too crucial and direct if they are able to yak away on racecam while doing it. :D


but because the bit where they swing at the ball is essentially golf itself ! the walking between hole is a distant secondary concern
again refer to golf eg above.

OK, I accept that this is distinct from normal time limit chess to the extent that the time-scramble aspect is not present in every game for every player, but tends to arise only as a result of a certain approach to time management, or an unusually difficult position.


its the level of directness that is critical here , , like remote controlled aircraft/cars etc
i would argue that it could be argued either way ;) ,

I think some people would consider remote-control boating (for instance) to be at least a borderline sport who would not consider video games to be a sport at all. But remote-control boating is less direct than a video game because outside-world physical factors (like wind fluctuations) can influence the result. So I'm not convinced that lack of directness is the reason video games are considered non-sporting.

Also, riderless animal races are considered a sport, but can be extremely indirect. I suppose if you argue that a horse or greyhound knows it is competing that might be argued either way, but does a racing pigeon know it is trying to help its owner win a prize?

Aaron Guthrie
01-07-2008, 11:10 PM
I think some people would consider remote-control boating (for instance) to be at least a borderline sport who would not consider video games to be a sport at all. But remote-control boating is less direct than a video game because outside-world physical factors (like wind fluctuations) can influence the result. So I'm not convinced that lack of directness is the reason video games are considered non-sporting.I reckon some people think some vg's count as sports. Certainly they hold serious vg competitions.

Axiom
02-07-2008, 12:19 AM
I'm not sure; is there a physiologist in the house?
yes , LAST CALL for a PHYSIOLOGIST !

(Actually we need a few experts here,...... a structural engineer would be good , for the you know what story ......or several stories in fact , um....er...pancaking stories...um..) :)



Why does it matter whether it is direct or indirect? Especially given that indirect effects are the lion's share of success or failure in so many sports.
It may not matter as such , but simply serve as this functioning definitional guideline.



It can't be too crucial and direct if they are able to yak away on racecam while doing it. :D
the fact that he can talk as well does not necessarily detract from the essentialness of the physical actions taking place , subtle though this may be.



OK, I accept that this is distinct from normal time limit chess to the extent that the time-scramble aspect is not present in every game for every player, but tends to arise only as a result of a certain approach to time management, or an unusually difficult position. the time scramble is the sportiest part of chess , but enough to meet the overall criteria ?




I think some people would consider remote-control boating (for instance) to be at least a borderline sport who would not consider video games to be a sport at all. But remote-control boating is less direct than a video game because outside-world physical factors (like wind fluctuations) can influence the result. So I'm not convinced that lack of directness is the reason video games are considered non-sporting. im not sure how to weigh up the degree of directness here , i'm inclined to go with both as sports.


Also, riderless animal races are considered a sport, but can be extremely indirect. I suppose if you argue that a horse or greyhound knows it is competing that might be argued either way, but does a racing pigeon know it is trying to help its owner win a prize? does it have to know its trying to win a prize ? could it be enough that the critical physical actions be performed by the pigeon handler , ie. the correct training ( remote controlling the bird ! , ....ooh , but is that getting too indirect? :hmm: )

Kevin Bonham
04-07-2008, 01:28 AM
It may not matter as such , but simply serve as this functioning definitional guideline.

But what is its function, beyond attempting to support your case.


the fact that he can talk as well does not necessarily detract from the essentialness of the physical actions taking place , subtle though this may be.

Reaching out and moving the chesspieces now and then is also an essential physical action, in that case.


the time scramble is the sportiest part of chess , but enough to meet the overall criteria ?

Who said anything about "enough"? You were supporting essential criteria of a yes/no, on/off nature. Shifting to "yes it is a sport in bits, but not enough bits" is moving the goalposts.


does it have to know its trying to win a prize ? could it be enough that the critical physical actions be performed by the pigeon handler , ie. the correct training ( remote controlling the bird ! , ....ooh , but is that getting too indirect? :hmm: )

That's exactly what I was getting at. Pigeon-racing is called a sport because it involves things racing and being judged on the results. But the thing doing the racing may not "know" it is competing and there is no physical skill required for the preparing human.

An even better example of the same thing: robot soccer. A competition between humans through their proxies; once the whistle blows there may not be any physical element for the human competitors at all.

Garvinator
04-07-2008, 03:53 PM
I think Susan Polgar reads chesschat ;)

From her website.


According to Wikipedia.com, "Sport is an activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively.

Sports commonly refer to activities where the physical capabilities of the competitor are the sole or primary determinant of the outcome (winning or losing), but the term is also used to include activities such as mind sports (a common name for some card games and board games with little to no element of chance) and motor sports where mental acuity or equipment quality are major factors."

So from this detailed definition of sport, is Xbox Live gaming a sport?

It is governed by a set of rules, and is most of the time competitive.

Granted their is no physical requirement in the world of on-line video games, but there is no doubt some level of mental aptitude necessary to be victorious.

A person that plays chess and eventually becomes a grand master...do they qualify as an athlete?

Or a golfer that is grossly overweight, and does nothing physical except for his swing?

There is no doubt that the interpretation of what is a sport is going to vary by person, but we can all agree that a sport is a competitive event that people gather for.

Typically sports have fans that cheer for a team or individual. Well in the World Series of Poker, people gather to watch the participants climb up the ladder to win the jackpot.

Some even cheer for certain players they like for whatever reason it is.

As I said above, I believe that a sport is an event that is in a competitive environment with people attending, whether it be at someone's house to watch their friend play Halo 3, to watching their favorite player win Wimbledon.

A sport is what you make it. Shuffleboard at a bar may not require athletic skill, but it's unbelievably fun, attracts people to watch the games and really get into it. Rounds are played, people win and lose. It's all a game.

In other words in my view a sport equates to a game in its simplest sense, and is what you make of it.

Here is the full article. Do you agree with the author?

Spiny Norman
04-07-2008, 03:56 PM
I am meeting with the shadow minister for Education (Tony Smith MP) in a few weeks. If the opportunity arises I will have a chat to him about chess and see whether there might be anything that could be done on the funding front in a future Liberal federal government.

Denis_Jessop
04-07-2008, 05:00 PM
I am meeting with the shadow minister for Education (Tony Smith MP) in a few weeks. If the opportunity arises I will have a chat to him about chess and see whether there might be anything that could be done on the funding front in a future Liberal federal government.

Good luck but don't hold your breath waiting. ;)

As I've mentioned here before, in 2006, when I was ACF President, Senator Kate Lundy, then ALP Shadow Minister for Sport and Recreation told me that chess would receive recognition and, I understood, funding, from a future Labor government but it hasn't happened yet and Senator Lundy missed out on a portfolio as well.

DJ

Garvinator
04-07-2008, 05:10 PM
I think the general response from any opposition would be: Sure we will support you. Please vote for us so we can get into government.

Of course the flaw is that Tony Smith does not have to 'buy' your vote, you already vote Libs.

Remember to take your Card carrying lib membership ;)

Aaron Guthrie
04-07-2008, 05:15 PM
There is no doubt that the interpretation of what is a sport is going to vary by person, but we can all agree that a sport is a competitive event that people gather for.That is such a bizarre move. Why do people not expect a simple "no, we cannot agree" response when they do this? Or even "maybe we can, maybe we cannot. So why do you say we can?"

Kevin Bonham
04-07-2008, 10:21 PM
As I said above, I believe that a sport is an event that is in a competitive environment with people attending, whether it be at someone's house to watch their friend play Halo 3, to watching their favorite player win Wimbledon.

I'm actually not convinced by that definition either. Firstly if a Federer plays a Nadal in a forest and nobody watches, it's still sport, so long as they are keeping score and know who won and lost. (They probably should play in a forest, it might be closer than grass or clay!) Secondly this definition would make debating a sport. Although debating was actually treated as a sport for blazer awards purposes at our school (something I made persistent use of in my lengthy and ultimately successful campaign to have chess treated the same) I suspect that hardly anyone really thinks of it as a sport.

Indeed, even a lottery draw or some of the more braindead luck-dominated TV gameshows might pass as sports on this definition. It's competitive and people gather to watch it - it just happens that the competitive element is determined purely by luck and there is no actual "competing" involved.

george
09-07-2008, 10:00 AM
Hi All,

Now that Freytag is finished I hope to get the petition ready for ACF Council by weekend.

Kindest Regards

Brian_Jones
09-07-2008, 11:01 AM
Hi All,

Now that Freytag is finished I hope to get the petition ready for ACF Council by weekend.

Kindest Regards

Is it true that, unlike SA Women, the SA Men can only do one thing at a time? :)

Brian_Jones
09-07-2008, 11:04 AM
I am meeting with the shadow minister for Education (Tony Smith MP) in a few weeks. If the opportunity arises I will have a chat to him about chess and see whether there might be anything that could be done on the funding front in a future Liberal federal government.

You are just too nice Spiny! :)

Just nail his feet to the floor and don't let him leave the meeting until he has promised to act on our behalf! :evil:

george
09-07-2008, 11:07 AM
Hi Brian,

Sometimes you make very foolish comments.

Garvinator
09-07-2008, 12:33 PM
You are just too nice Spiny! :)

Just nail his feet to the floor and don't let him leave the meeting until he has promised to act on our behalf! :evil:
I would want that promise in writing with the liberal party letterhead as well.

george
09-07-2008, 01:28 PM
Hi All,

Sent the draft petition off to be considered at ACF Council meeting on 21st July.

kindest Regards

george
22-07-2008, 01:17 PM
hi all,

The draft petition was accepted by ACF Council last night with some minor layout changes. The text of the petition is entirely consistent with the work done in a submission to government by Brian Jones some time ago - so our message remains constant.

The petition with new layout has been sent to Secretary ACF who will send a copy to each state and territory. Each state/territory is then responsible for photocopying/distributing and collecting the petition and returning it to me by mid January 2009.

Kindest regards
George Howard

ER
22-07-2008, 02:53 PM
hi all,

The draft petition was accepted by ACF Council last night with some minor layout changes. The text of the petition is entirely consistent with the work done in a submission to government by Brian Jones some time ago - so our message remains constant.

The petition with new layout has been sent to Secretary ACF who will send a copy to each state and territory. Each state/territory is then responsible for photocopying/distributing and collecting the petition and returning it to me by mid January 2009.

Kindest regards
George Howard

Excellent!!!
I look forward to participate in any action Chess Victoria will take to support this great move!
I suggest to send copies to be signed by world known chess personalities. I happen to know that Chess stars like the Polgar sisters, Magnus Carlsen and Chess Administrators from FIFA (ie George Makropoulos) as well as the Greek and Turkish Chess Federations will be very supportive.
Cheers and good luck!!!

Intuition
27-08-2008, 09:01 PM
Is chess televised on any Australian Channel as a 'sport' ie like poker is televised on several 'sports' channels?

eclectic
27-08-2008, 09:04 PM
Is chess televised on any Australian Channel as a 'sport' ie like poker is televised on several 'sports' channels?

i don't think so now thought i believe ch 31 in melbourne might have once (?)

i've suggested to justaknight that maybe SBS could take up the idea one day

;)

Kevin Bonham
27-08-2008, 09:12 PM
SBS has showed some chess events in very rare instances. I recall it showing episodes of a FIDE rapid grand prix event several years ago.

Capablanca-Fan
29-09-2008, 03:12 PM
Letter to a Young Relative (http://townhall.com/Columnists/BurtPrelutsky/2008/09/29/letter_to_a_young_relative)
by Burt Prelutsky
This is to a teenage nephew who wanted to join the school chess club, but had second thoughts because of peer pressure (aka socialization) that chess is for wusses. Brelutsky points out:


In my opinion, a wuss isn’t somebody who plays chess; a wuss is someone who doesn’t play chess because he listens to people — people who aren’t even bright enough to know how a knight moves — who insist that only wusses play chess.

george
08-10-2008, 11:26 AM
Hi All,

Please continue sending me the completed Chess as a Sport petitions. I havent received many yet but you have till mid January 2009 to send them to me.

It came to my attention from a Chess Official friend in UK that their change in definition was successful because chess and bridge worked together to achieve said change.

To this end I have approached the Bridge peak body and they have said they will reply towards the end of this month - although i have approached them as a representative of ACF the petition etc is from CHESSPLAYERS of AUSTRALIA.

The Chess as Sport Petition is very much a Grass Roots action and so depends on "rank and file" action - if you the chess public dont send me the completed petitions the submission myself and others make on your behalf to Sports Minister will be weakened. There are NO guarantees even if we got the desired 10,000 signatures but the presentation will be strong or not dependent very much on how many signatures we get.

So if you wish to see a SIGNIFICANT inflow of cash into chess in this country in a way we could only dream of COMPLETE the PETITION its up to you guys - no more excuses about leadership not doing this or that - get off your backsides and get friends , chessplayers , complete strangers to fill-in the petition.

The address for completed petitions as per ACF Newsletter is

12 John Street
Kingswood 5062

kindest regards
George Howard

CameronD
15-12-2008, 11:29 AM
Some IAs seem to have obtained their certificates from cereal boxes. This is moronic in the extreme. Chess should be compared to games like go and draughts, where resignation is good manners. NOT to soccer, Mr Cameron "Chess is not a sport" D. :P

Correct,chess is a game, not a sport

Adamski
15-12-2008, 11:46 AM
Correct,chess is a game, not a sportCam, why can't chess be both a sport and a game at the same time? It is also both an art and a science at the same time.

CameronD
15-12-2008, 12:15 PM
Cam, why can't chess be both a sport and a game at the same time? It is also both an art and a science at the same time.

Cause I say so.

Chess is not science or art either, why do you people are so disillusioned by chess that you need to be categorised something its not.

CHESS IS A GAME

Desmond
15-12-2008, 12:23 PM
why do you people are so disillusioned by chess that you need to be categorised something its not.A coherent argument, if ever I saw one.:rolleyes:

Adamski
15-12-2008, 12:25 PM
Mikhail Tal, for one, succeeded in making chess an art sometimes. Botvinnik succeeded often in making it a science. Books have been writen on this so I don't think we can exhaust the arguments on this BB....

But Cam your "cause I say so" is no real explanation of why chess can't be both a sport and a game at the same time. Some reasonable level of physical fitness is required to succeed at chess, just like with other sports.

To bring this back on topic, I think that in the "chess is not a sport" debate, you are delaying the inevitable (loss by you) to make fun of your opponent (just about everyone else on this BB).

Trent Parker
15-12-2008, 01:08 PM
Sorry for going off topic but Chess can be a game and a sport. Is Tennis involved in "games".

eclectic
15-12-2008, 02:35 PM
Cause I say so.

Chess is not science or art either, why do you people are so disillusioned by chess that you need to be categorised something its not.

CHESS IS A GAME

so i gather Cam that if chess became officially recognised as a sport in australia and getting a large grant for your chess club was conditional on your accepting that then you on principle would refuse to apply for such a grant or play in any chess club which accepted that recognition or received grants based on that recognition

this post is really just a pretext to ask the mods to move some off topic posts here elsewhere

;)

Watto
15-12-2008, 02:55 PM
A coherent argument, if ever I saw one.:rolleyes:
lol. Speaking of which, you've made some good sense in this thread, Boris. I’m more or less in agreement with you.

CameronD
15-12-2008, 03:00 PM
Sorry for going off topic but Chess can be a game and a sport. Is Tennis involved in "games".

Dictionary definition of sport

an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature

chess is not athletic

Definition of game

An activity providing entertainment or amusement; a pastime
or

A competitive activity or sport in which players contend with each other according to a set of rules.

By these definitions, Tennis is both a sport and game, whereas chess clearly doesn't meet the sport definition

CameronD
15-12-2008, 03:08 PM
http://www.ausport.gov.au/information/finding_sport_information

Interesting how their are no board games listed as sports, only events with physicsl exertion or phyisical finesse are listed.

I'll note that too much money is spent on sport and needs to be diverted to more important things like education, health and many other critical things. If you want to bundle chess into education, then you can make a very good argument.

Adamski
15-12-2008, 03:21 PM
[url]I'll note that too much money is spent on sport and needs to be diverted to more important things like education, health and money other critical things.That's a funny typo, with a grain of truth, Cam. But you still haven't convinced me that chess is not a sport. When I play or analyse chess, some physical activity is involved, such as getting up from the board to renew the oxygen supply to my body after a stressful period of thinking and trying to analyse a complex position - like homework!

Bill Gletsos
15-12-2008, 03:28 PM
Dictionary definition of sport

an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature

chess is not athletic

Definition of game

An activity providing entertainment or amusement; a pastime
or

A competitive activity or sport in which players contend with each other according to a set of rules.

By these definitions, Tennis is both a sport and game, whereas chess clearly doesn't meet the sport definitionThat is because you were selective and did not list all the dictionary definitions of the word game.

MSN Encarta also lists sport as:
an active pastime participated in for pleasure or exercise

dictionary.com also lists sport as:
diversion; recreation; pleasant pastime.

Kevin Bonham
15-12-2008, 10:27 PM
Interesting how their are no board games listed as sports, only events with physicsl exertion or phyisical finesse are listed.

Interesting only in that it reflects an insufficiently founded bias that we are attempting to overturn and that has already been overturned in about half the rest of the nations of the world!

Adamski
15-12-2008, 10:42 PM
Hi All,

Please continue sending me the completed Chess as a Sport petitions. I havent received many yet but you have till mid January 2009 to send them to me.

It came to my attention from a Chess Official friend in UK that their change in definition was successful because chess and bridge worked together to achieve said change.

To this end I have approached the Bridge peak body and they have said they will reply towards the end of this month - although i have approached them as a representative of ACF the petition etc is from CHESSPLAYERS of AUSTRALIA.

The Chess as Sport Petition is very much a Grass Roots action and so depends on "rank and file" action - if you the chess public dont send me the completed petitions the submission myself and others make on your behalf to Sports Minister will be weakened. There are NO guarantees even if we got the desired 10,000 signatures but the presentation will be strong or not dependent very much on how many signatures we get.

So if you wish to see a SIGNIFICANT inflow of cash into chess in this country in a way we could only dream of COMPLETE the PETITION its up to you guys - no more excuses about leadership not doing this or that - get off your backsides and get friends , chessplayers , complete strangers to fill-in the petition.

The address for completed petitions as per ACF Newsletter is

12 John Street
Kingswood 5062

kindest regards
George HowardManly and Norths have been collecting signatures - they should be forwarded soon. I signed of course.

Desmond
28-01-2009, 11:46 AM
Is fishing a sport? What about sitting in a boat sinking tinnies but not fishing?

Rincewind
28-01-2009, 05:55 PM
Is fishing a sport? What about sitting in a boat sinking tinnies but not fishing?

They do have fishing competitions. Perhaps they receive a even higher level of television coverage than chess!

What chess needs are equipment manufacturers who can sponsor the top players and fund the television coverage as a marketing exercise.

Johns
07-06-2015, 02:42 AM
I had the same thought as you with the "entertainment" - that it would qualify if it was actually a sport. I google to find this be first definition
"sport
spɔːt/Submit
noun
1.
an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment."
I slap you down.

Rincewind
07-06-2015, 10:09 AM
I google to find this be first definition
"sport
spɔːt/Submit
noun
1.
an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment."
I slap you down.

WWE wrestling bouts have their outcomes determined in advance to progress a narrative. So while they qualify as an exertion, they fail on there being any competition.

Kevin Bonham
07-06-2015, 09:58 PM
It's not a great definition anyway. For instance a private practice round of a sport may not entertain anyone but it is still sport.

Agent Smith
08-06-2015, 09:56 AM
God - you'll nit pick on the tiniest things.. What a silly argument. They are practising.
That's why i never even try to argue with you Kev. :whistle:

Johns
08-06-2015, 11:12 AM
WWE wrestling bouts have their outcomes determined in advance to progress a narrative. This can not be true. I have put betting money on wrestlers and win against my children many years ago.

Johns
08-06-2015, 11:14 AM
It's not a great definition anyway. I looked you in google you remember. ZI did not see you were a
English professor.

Kerry Stead
08-06-2015, 12:53 PM
This can not be true. I have put betting money on wrestlers and win against my children many years ago.

Sportsbet have markets on the next WWE event ...
Seth Rollins (1.14) v Dean Ambrose (4.33)
John Cena (1.83) v Kevin Owens (1.83
New Day (1.10) v Prime Time Players (5.50)
So you can bet on 'fixed' events ...
Although I was amused by the outcome of the Wrestlemania main event, which had Brock Lesnar v Roman Reigns ... with the winner being Seth Rollins!

Garvinator
08-06-2015, 02:35 PM
Sportsbet have markets on the next WWE event ...
Seth Rollins (1.14) v Dean Ambrose (4.33)
Although I was amused by the outcome of the Wrestlemania main event, which had Brock Lesnar v Roman Reigns ... with the winner being Seth Rollins!
And it is likely that the money in the bank briefcase will be won by the time of Rollins v Ambrose, so could be cashed in during that match, or straight after. There are even rumours floating around that Lesnar will 'steal' the briefcase.

I have given up on this being a legit discussion on which organisation is the most dodgy.

Kevin Bonham
08-06-2015, 06:19 PM
God - you'll nit pick on the tiniest things.. What a silly argument. They are practising.

And your point is? Practise for sport can still be sport in its own right, just as a private chess training match is still chess. Indeed two people might play a tennis match that is not practise for anything, nor to entertain an audience, but with the primary goal of improving their personal fitness. That's still sport as well.


That's why i never even try to argue with you Kev. :whistle:

People who are averse to detail and who love unnecessary over-generalisation are insincerely welcome to dismiss my objections as nit-picking, but such stereotyping won't make them any less wrong.

Chessplayers have a special reason to pay attention to how sport is defined, as it affects our own sport. The fact that the meaning of the term is rather difficult to pin down is relevant to attempts to exclude chess.


I looked you in google you remember. ZI did not see you were a English professor.

Then I suggest you go and Google "logical fallacies" and "argument from authority" then. One doesn't have to be an English professor here. Moreover, I do have a qualification in philosophy and anyone else who had such should be able to spot at an instant the debt my comments on definitions of words owe to the Wittgenstinian concept of family resemblance. :P

ElevatorEscapee
10-06-2015, 11:16 PM
This can not be true. I have put betting money on wrestlers and win against my children many years ago.

Yes, I believe wrestlers may be able to beat your children... :D

Johns
13-06-2015, 08:19 PM
Then I suggest you go and Google "logical fallacies" and "argument from authority" then. One doesn't have to be an English professor here.

Then you follow witht this




I do have a qualification in philosophy
Kevin I don"t no what to say to you. Maybe should be more carefull.

Kevin Bonham
13-06-2015, 10:40 PM
Kevin I don"t no what to say to you. Maybe should be more carefull.

When I want lessons from you I'll be sure to offer you the generous rate in fractions of cents per hour that they're worth.

I am anything but careless with these things, and I like to bury invalid arguments comprehensively. In this case I was pointing out that your comments involved a logical fallacy, but that even if arguments from authority were valid, they would still not succeed against me in this case.

Johns
18-06-2015, 04:59 PM
When I want lessons from you I'll be sure to offer you the generous rate in fractions of cents per hour that they're worth.


This is abusive. I do not like it.





I am anything but careless with these things, and I like to bury invalid arguments comprehensively.

I know how people can annoy when they not agreeing with you. You must try to be kind. This idea you have here written is like smart bullying.

Kevin Bonham
18-06-2015, 06:43 PM
This is abusive. I do not like it.

Well don't falsely accuse me of carelessness then.


I know how people can annoy when they not agreeing with you.

It's not people not agreeing that's the issue, it's you falsely sledging my comments as careless when they were not.


You must try to be kind.

You were not trying so, again, I don't want your advice.


This idea you have here written is like smart bullying.

Your lame deployment of the "bullying card" (because you dished it out but couldn't take it) is not like anything smart. :P

Johns
19-06-2015, 03:12 PM
Well don't falsely accuse me of carelessness then.



It's not people not agreeing that's the issue, it's you falsely sledging my comments as careless when they were not.



You were not trying so, again, I don't want your advice.



Your lame deployment of the "bullying card" (because you dished it out but couldn't take it) is not like anything smart. :P

The way you talk to people makes me not want to talk with you. Please never talk to me again. Ever.

Kevin Bonham
19-06-2015, 06:51 PM
The way you talk to people makes me not want to talk with you. Please never talk to me again. Ever.

Response tokenly noted and comprehensively ignored (see moderation thread for more detail).