"Chess is a game"

[John McKenna]

Diogenes went around Corinth with a lamp in broad daylight looking for an honest man. Socrates scoured Athens for a man who knew what he was talking about.
I think Peter knows what he's talking about and is speaking honestly.
As in imperial Rome, however, our modern nation state thrives on bread (money) and circuses (media, celebrity, sport and all other entertainment).
Our president is only following a standard path and is a reflection of this culture so we should not be surprised at spectacular events.

[Colin Patterson]

As I see it, chess is undeniably a board GAME - it has been so for centuries. Similarly, it is also a gymnasium for the mind and in that sense, can plausibly be defined as a mind SPORT. Most people should have no problem with the co-existence of these two descriptions.

The only issue appears to be whether it qualifies for government lottery funding and I guess that is always going to hinge on the goodwill/interpretation of politicians. It's status as a sport within the IOC should help, but is not going to be a decisive factor.

Perhaps the Chess in Schools and the Community (CSC) campaign is the next logical step to showing the value of chess in helping develop logical, enquiring minds. Again, this may not win the lottery funding argument, but if masses of people begin playing the game on a regular basis, then attractiveness to sponsors will surely follow.

[PeterTurland]

As I see it, chess is undeniably a board GAME.

Nah the board is for patzers like me, I remember seeing the extraordinary sight of Susan Polgar on a TV program, talking on a mobile phone whilst walking towards a park somewhere in America, where a person was sitting at a chess board playing chess with her over the phone. She walked up to the board from off the street and mated him.

Another extraordinary mental athlete was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Koltanowski.

[George Szaszvari]

As I see it, chess is undeniably a board GAME - it has been so for centuries. Similarly, it is also a gymnasium for the mind and in that sense, can plausibly be defined as a mind SPORT. Most people should have no problem with the co-existence of these two descriptions.

Absolutely.

The only issue appears to be whether it qualifies for government lottery funding and I guess that is always going to hinge on the goodwill/interpretation of politicians. It's status as a sport within the IOC should help, but is not going to be a decisive factor.

Perhaps the Chess in Schools and the Community (CSC) campaign is the next logical step to showing the value of chess in helping develop logical, enquiring minds. Again, this may not win the lottery funding argument, but if masses of people begin playing the game on a regular basis, then attractiveness to sponsors will surely follow.

Etc, etc. Yep, right on the button, but after years of discussion and hard work by many good souls, this seems to
be where the hurdle lies. The question is: how do we surmount this problem? It is sometimes helpful to rephrase the
questions to a problem. So...why is it so hard to sell chess as an enjoyable activity? A huge amount of progress has
been made over the decades in promoting chess in schools, but the game is still too low profile, is it not? How do we
get a higher profile for chess?

The below ideas are just food for thought, for discussion, suggested with a provisional disclaimer, viz: none of this is
original, and having been out of the loop for over a decade I don't know whether the below suggestions are already on
board the ECF agenda to promote the game, so forgive me, and let me know, if they are!

I'm now convinced we need to emphasize the entertaining sides of chess as much as the supposedly intellectual value
of it, which can be too easily perceived as "nerdish", a turn off. Anyway, we all obviously need to be entertained at
certain levels by what goes on in a chess game or composition, or we wouldn't give it our attention in the first place,
but off the board perception of chess as entertaining must help in giving chess a higher profile. Note that people are
much more readily influenced by emotional perception than by rational argument, so we need to raise the public profile
of chess by consciously thinking about and emphasizing it more in terms of entertainment when promoting the game.
Remember how chess became high profile when Fischer played Spassky in 1972? It sold because it was entertaining!
Sure, there were the special circumstances of the US v USSR Cold War face-off analogy, but media people, without
knowing anything about chess, were actually calling Fischer a great "entertainer" and taking up the game themselves.
Club memberships quadrupled overnight because chess was perceived to be entertaining. People want to know about
and be part of something entertaining. When Fischer disappeared from the scene after 1972 the entertainment
perception largely faded with him. Look at how the media swarms all over fashion and film industry personalities and
take a cue from that.

Someone else's turn now.

[IanDavis]

Chess is recognised as a sport by the International Olympic Committee and by the vast majority of EU countries. Perhaps the president of the English Chess Federation should know this?

Maybe he was just quoting the FIDE rules?

[Michael Jones]

Many years ago when I was a truck driver and I used to pick up hitchhikers, one question I used to ask them was 'Is life a game, or a story?

Being a story would imply that there's an author who knows what's going to happen next. If that's the case in my life, the author certainly isn't me.

[PeterTurland]

Many years ago when I was a truck driver and I used to pick up hitchhikers, one question I used to ask them was 'Is life a game, or a story?

Being a story would imply that there's an author who knows what's going to happen next. If that's the case in my life, the author certainly isn't me.

The problem with describing things with metaphors is, it is like art, you see in the painting what you want to see in the painting.

Using the two metaphors 'game' and 'story' to describe life, is not based on the idea 'story' as though to describe life like it is a novel with an author, or that it is like East Enders.
It is more based around the idea, that life as experienced as an individual, is not lived by some kind of formula beloved of advertising companies, but is something deeper, and that the fact that my grandfather served in the first world war and was gassed, and my father served in the second world war and felt bitter about it.

That my mother was German and in a sense was a trophy that my father won as a result of England beating the Germans, which led to my existence, it is more about something called teleology.

I once mentioned teleology on a philosophy list called Chora, the response was interesting, moreso because I left school at 15 and have no academic qualifications in anything.

http://listserv.liv.ac.uk/cgi-bin/wa?A1 ... L=chora#63

[Alex Holowczak]

To be honest, I'm not too bothered whether we're a game or a sport. I don't see why games and sports should be treated differently. For example, students can't play in the World University Chess Championship; one reason is that chess is not recognised as a sport, and British Universities & Colleges Sport governs sports. I don't see why that should be a barrier.

Perhaps we're fighting the wrong argument. Perhaps we should be fighting for equal recognition between games and sports, rather than the reclassification of chess as a sport?

[John Upham]

Should we separate further into games of skill and games of chance?

I'd suggest asking the top 20 players if they believe they indulge in a sport or a game.

I suspect the classification (if you feel the need to classify) of an activity as a game or a sport might be a function of the professionalism of the participant.

Persons who enjoy but are weak at cricket might be happy to refer to it as a game. IT Botham, for example, might be less inclined.

Furthermore, mind sports and physical sports? I suppose if one is a numismatist or philatelist then classifying is an important activity.

[James Toon]

"Chess. It's not a game."

See this video on the dangers of playing chess. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIQvkwhLJHo&feature=fvsr.

[George Szaszvari]

.......Perhaps we're fighting the wrong argument. Perhaps we should be fighting for equal recognition between games and sports, rather than the reclassification of chess as a sport?

Hmm, you could be on to something here. Changing the general perception of chess seems to me to be the way to go, the perception held by those authorized to allocate private (sponsors) and public funds, and the collective perceptions of Joe/Jane Public. Getting the latter on board in a bigger way is going to really help. How to get 'em board is the crux of the matter. When zillions of people get involved in chess on a massive scale then public and private funding will follow. But, one might argue, don't we need funding in the first place to get there? Sport, shmort, game, shmame, whatever. The word sport is only important now because certain chess people want funding and official support for their game, and do chessplayers of any standard really care about the word-labels apart from that? Okay, getting it called sport, or a game made equal to sport, seems a way to go, but doesn't this tend to bring out the exclusive, and sometimes pompous, claims for chess, sucking up to potential sponsors, that does little for attracting Joe/Jane Public to the game? Are not the charismatic, adventurous and imaginative advocates, players, organizers, authors, and coaches, the ones who put in a lot of unpaid (and even subsidize) time and work who raise the profile of chess? Are not the the Tschigorins, Fischers, Tals, Bob Wades, Leonard Bardens, Andrew Martins, and even John Healys of this world, in short, those who make chess interesting for occasional and non-players and promote it in terms of entertainment the ones that help change general perceptions of the game/sport of chess?

It is interesting that in the recently posted Matthew Sadler interview, Sadler states that chess is now his hobby. Is the non-chess perception of those who read that now going to put chess on par with scrapbooking or fishing?

[David Pardoe]

There was an article recently in the Daily Telegragh, which listed all the major sporting events of this coming year in Britain.
It listed all the usual ones..like Football, Cycling, Boxing, Athletics, Swimming, Horse Racing...even Darts & Snooker, etc....but no sight of a mention for chess...nor Bridge.
So, in practice I class Chess as a social/cultural persuit...hobby, pastime, recreation.
Whilst such activities are not generally regarded as sports, I do think that such social/cultural activities & pastimes should receive the same tax benefits as other `charity status` persuits. As for `professional` & `Amateur` status.... I think the distinction should only be made where there is significant prize money at stake...ie, why not simply tax events where prize funds exceed say £3000, or where the first prize exceeds say £1000. If such events were required to register with HM Revenue for tax purposes & declare major prize winners (winning say over £500), then maybe there would be no need to demark between `Professional` & `Amateur` in such activities.
Of course `Professional` could include other related activities, like Simultaineous Displays, Writing, coaching, TV appearances, etc....I guess that individuals who earn significant amounts from such activities would (or should) have to declare these for tax purposes.
The point I`m leading to here is whether we actually need to split chess or other similar persuits into `Amateur` & `Professional`. I personnally would prefer just one `united` body.....(wouldnt that be an achievement).
Creating two separate groups seems like `more unnecessary hassle`.... and I`d like to see the ECF move to a Co-operative, rather than trying to pose as a `normal` Company.