English Chess Forum

Apologies if this has been covered before.

I'm sure I'm not the only person who has answered 'chess' to the question 'Do you play any sports?' and been told that 'chess is not a sport, it's a game/hobby'. Well..... why?

Has anybody ever seen a (dictionary) definition of sport that would definitely preclude chess?

In the UK the answer is that it is not. This is because the government says that the he main assessment criteria used to assess whether the Sports Council will recognise an activity as a sport, uses a definition of sport contained in the Council of Europe’s European Sports Charter 1993.

This defines sport as:

“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 competition at all levels.”

Chess falls down at this hurdle because it is not a physical activity and does not improve physical well-being.

However, the IOC and FISU (and hence BUCS) recognise it as a sport, so presumably it meets their definition.

It's an art.

Isn't chess brilliant, it can be a sport, game, hobby, art or science.

Paul,
It is an interesting exercise to think about your own definition of sport. Then think about chess, bridge, weightlifting, swimming, darts, clay-pigeon shooting and see how they fit with your definition, sometimes the results are a bit surprising.

Matthew, you missed "religion".

Personally, I'm not in favour of chess being thought of as a sport. The Germans and Dutch may have their 'denksport' (or whatever) but it will never gain that level of respect in the UK. When one ventures the "chess is a sport" argument with a non-player, they look pityingly at you. The definition given above probably includes things like wellie-chucking and conkers as sports. Do we really want to be bracketed with such dross? It's much better to be thought of as the Rolls-Royce of games than the Skoda of sports.

Alex Holowczak wrote:However, the IOC and FISU (and hence BUCS) recognise it as a sport, so presumably it meets their definition.

It would be vaguely surprising if the IOC wasn't slightly compromised by self-interest on the matter.

This is a really poor thread. Chess is not a sport. Its a mental game. I don't think darts is a sport tbh, nor even snooker. they are also games.

Matt , weightlifting is much more of a sport than Chess, to suggest otherwise is hmmmm "interesting".

We don't need chess to be a recognised sport. It doesn't require the sort of funding that the likes of football does to produce talent. Well not in my opinion.

Anyway, we have chessboxing to fulfil our Olympic desires to see chess appear as an olympic sport. Albeit not to the same standard as professional chess, it's only a matter of time before it really kicks off and gains momentum with the public.

Chess UFC would be better....

in a 10 minute gme, with 3 minute rounds of fighting, ill happily just sit for first 2 3 minute chess rounds and take on magnus or any top 100 chess player

Hi, In my experience I don't believe chess is a sport; it's not popular enough to be put on television in addition to this it's not involving enough physical activity, it's a game like many others such as darts and snooker etc, etc.

Although snooker and darts is more of a sport than chess. I would called "Chessboxing" a sport, but chess NO!

Matt.

Ernie, the reason for those two too be televised snooker and darts on the BBC, is because there is much much more money involved and they are more popular than chess it's quiet simple. Also they are games, I agree with you compared to other sports like football and that, but to say chess is a sport I think is nonsense.

Chess has no sponsorships, if there is any affluent millionaire which will sponsor chess then chess maybe it will then get a programme, on television.

Matt.

Snooker does involve physical skill. You are physically moving a cue (stick) to control a ball. There are plenty of other stick and ball sports, so why not snooker? In snooker, the emphasis is based on how accurately you can control your stick, sometimes showing how powerfully you can control the ball with the stick. This is the same premise as golf, tennis, cricket even.

Conversely, in chess, moving the pieces doesn't count as "physical", because the way in which you move the pieces is not critical in determining the game. In snooker, the way in which you control the stick is fundamental to the outcome of the game.

matt_ward wrote:Chess has no sponsorships,

Really? How do you arrive at that totally inaccurate and false conclusion?

If you want anyone to take your posts seriously then it must be worth to make some attempt to get your assertions factually correct.

"There are not enough major sponsors of chess" might be a start.