Is Chess a Sport?

[BrianRobinson]

It appears this is a live question again as Judge Mostyn in the High Court has allowed the English Bridge Union to mount a judicial review against Sport England's decison to refuse to recognise bridge as a sport. He has also directed that FIDE be informed as they "may want to get in on it" I am not sure why it would not be the ECF who are given the opportunity. Full details http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/a ... -card-game

[Brian Towers]

If darts is a sport then bridge and chess certainly are.

Somebody should show the judge a video of last weekend's Kasparov v Short match. That was sporting entertainment of a very high standard. How anybody could not see chess as a sport after Kasparov's performance I don't know.

[Neil Graham]

Details already on this thread

http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=6969

[Paolo Casaschi]

He has also directed that FIDE be informed as they "may want to get in on it" I am not sure why it would not be the ECF who are given the opportunity. Full details http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/a ... -card-game

If you allow me the joke, the judge is most likely an avid reader of chess forums, very well aware that most English chess players and their organizations have (tried and) given up on this already: hence the suggestion to inform FIDE rather than the ECF

More seriously, I wonder whether the Bridge union running this alone is a missed opportunity, certainly several organizations with similar claims joining forces have more chances of success.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I don't get this bit at all:

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/a ... -card-game

"Arguing against the decision, Gallofent said there was an “absolutely clear bright line” between bridge, chess and currently recognised sports. In snooker or rifle-shooting, no one else could take your shot, she said. While in bridge, “somebody else could step up and play my cards for me in these sort of mind games”."

Is it just me, or does that make no sense at all?

(The next time Kasparov or Carlsen are passing by, I can get them to play my moves for me? )

[MartinCarpenter]

Well yes you could, but as long as they were your moves The idea they're expressing is that you could have some sort of passive robot make the actual physical element of the move for you in chess/bridge, which obviously wouldn't work in an awful lot of sports.

The case of course depends on what the precise guidelines are/the purpose of the various grants etc. The EBU have the spare funds to try this sort of thing, I'd be a bit doubtful of the ECF.

[BrianRobinson]

The Telegraph now has a quote from Phil Ehr; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/predict ... cards.html

[BrianRobinson]

""Success in chess tournaments requires exertion, physical stamina, mental focus, control and cunning,” he (Phil Ehr) said". Clearly this is where I have been going wrong!

[David Robertson]

If the case relies on whether or not the brain is a muscle, it will fail: the brain is not a muscle. That much should be apparent from the strength of argument employed by some in here.

[Paolo Casaschi]

I don't get this bit at all:

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/a ... -card-game

"Arguing against the decision, Gallofent said there was an “absolutely clear bright line” between bridge, chess and currently recognised sports. In snooker or rifle-shooting, no one else could take your shot, she said. While in bridge, “somebody else could step up and play my cards for me in these sort of mind games”."

Is it just me, or does that make no sense at all?

I could mean that in activities like chess and bridge you could replicate the same exact situation and answer the question: what is the best move in this position; in (physical) sport you always play "in the moment", in other words in a situation that is unique to that player in that instant.
Clearly, who said that has no idea about chess as competitive sport; the videos of the Kasparov/Short match could be very instructive in this respect.

In any case, if this is the opposition defending the status quo, the legal challenge might actually have chances of success!

[Mick Norris]

If the case relies on whether or not the brain is a muscle, it will fail: the brain is not a muscle. That much should be apparent from the strength of argument employed by some in here.

[David Williams]

"Arguing against the decision, Gallofent said there was an “absolutely clear bright line” between bridge, chess and currently recognised sports. In snooker or rifle-shooting, no one else could take your shot, she said. While in bridge, “somebody else could step up and play my cards for me in these sort of mind games”."

If that's the dividing line, then 'Come Dine With Me' is a sporting event.

[Ian Thompson]

I don't get this bit at all:

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/a ... -card-game

"Arguing against the decision, Gallofent said there was an “absolutely clear bright line” between bridge, chess and currently recognised sports. In snooker or rifle-shooting, no one else could take your shot, she said. While in bridge, “somebody else could step up and play my cards for me in these sort of mind games”."

Is it just me, or does that make no sense at all?

i think she's saying that the distinction between a sport and a non-sport is that in a sport the skill lies in the execution of the shot/move etc., whereas in a non-sport the skill lies in deciding what the shot/move should be and the execution of it is trivial. That doesn't sound very convincing to me. A good player in any sport not only needs to be able to execute the best shot/move, they also need to be able to decide what the best shot/move is.

Her claim that bridge is no more a sporting activity than "sitting at home, reading a book" is absurd. Since when has reading a book been a competitive activity like bridge? If that's the best she can come up with you'd have to conclude that the EBU has a reasonable chance of success.

[Brian Towers]

""Success in chess tournaments requires exertion, physical stamina, mental focus, control and cunning,” he (Phil Ehr) said". Clearly this is where I have been going wrong!

Yes, watching the live video feed of Kasparov-Short was a real eye-opener. Kasparov was clearly involved in a sport and loving it. Nigel not so much.

[Ian Thompson]

I like this quote from Gordon Rainsford, an EBU tournament director, in the Independent on Sunday, whilst being interviewed at a Bridge tournament.

Bridge, when played in a tournament, is a serious, competitive, gruelling activity. Those are the things I think distinguish sport.

Obviously, exactly the same thing could be said of chess.