Page 3 of 6
Re: Chess is not a sport but a game. So what’s the difference?
Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 10:18 am
by Chris Goodall
Alan Walton wrote: ↑Tue Mar 13, 2018 10:07 am
Chris Wardle wrote: ↑Tue Mar 13, 2018 8:46 am
If you have to take the law of gravity into account, it's a sport.
If you don't, it's a game.
OK I'll bite; everything anybody does takes the law of gravity in account, but in your analogy that means Mo Farah doesn't compete in a sport because he is only running
Running is one of the most gravity-assisted sports there is. Without gravity, pushing upwards off your back foot would just launch you into the air.
Re: Chess is not a sport but a game. So what’s the difference?
Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 10:22 am
by Michael Farthing
Well I thought Chris' idea was spot on! Chess, bridge and dominos would be absolutely unchanged on the moon but Mo Farah would have to change technique quite considerably. I suppose, controversially, it makes tiddly-winks and Jenga a sport?
Re: Chess is not a sport but a game. So what’s the difference?
Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 10:25 am
by Alan Walton
Michael Farthing wrote: ↑Tue Mar 13, 2018 10:22 am
Well I thought Chris' idea was spot on! Chess, bridge and dominos would be absolutely unchanged on the moon but Mo Farah would have to change technique quite considerably. I suppose, controversially, it makes tiddly-winks and Jenga a sport?
What I am saying is was gravity affects everything; moving your arm to move a piece has gravity affects; I was think more about sports like golf or throwing activities
Re: Chess is not a sport but a game. So what’s the difference?
Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 10:36 am
by Chris Goodall
Alan Walton wrote: ↑Tue Mar 13, 2018 10:25 am
What I am saying is was gravity affects everything; moving your arm to move a piece has gravity affects; I was think more about sports like golf or throwing activities
Astronauts in zero gravity can move their arms.
Michael Farthing wrote: ↑Tue Mar 13, 2018 10:22 am
Well I thought Chris' idea was spot on! Chess, bridge and dominos would be absolutely unchanged on the moon but Mo Farah would have to change technique quite considerably. I suppose, controversially, it makes tiddly-winks and Jenga a sport?
And Subbuteo and Kerplunk and Mikado. Table sports!
Re: Chess is not a sport but a game. So what’s the difference?
Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 10:41 am
by Alan Walton
Chris Wardle wrote: ↑Tue Mar 13, 2018 10:36 am
Astronauts in zero gravity can move their arms.
This is getting silly; energy is used to move any part of your body to counteract the effects of gravity, lowering/increased the gravity effect will increase or decrease the energy used
Your original point was you have to take the law of gravity into account to be a sport; but gravity affects everything we do, therefore if you are saying playing chess breaches the law of gravity then you are making a sweeping scientific statement
Re: Chess is not a sport but a game. So what’s the difference?
Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 10:50 am
by Chris Goodall
Alan Walton wrote: ↑Tue Mar 13, 2018 10:41 am
if you are saying playing chess breaches the law of gravity
No, I'm not. That would be an absurd interpretation of what I said.
Re: Chess is not a sport but a game. So what’s the difference?
Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 10:58 am
by Nick Burrows
It wouldnt greatly affect chess if the physical aspect was removed, say you just said the moves out loud and a voice recognition made the move.
Its not the physical mechanics that make chess a sport, but the mental and physical stress that the chess sportsman has to deal with.
Re: Chess is not a sport but a game. So what’s the difference?
Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 11:03 am
by Chris Goodall
Nick Burrows wrote: ↑Tue Mar 13, 2018 10:58 am
It wouldnt greatly affect chess if the physical aspect was removed, say you just said the moves out loud and a voice recognition made the move.
Its not the physical mechanics that make chess a sport, but the mental and physical stress that the chess sportsman has to deal with.
Computers don't experience mental or physical stress. Are you saying that I'm playing a sport if my chess.com opponent is a real person, but I'm not playing a sport if they're cheating and using a computer?
Re: Chess is not a sport but a game. So what’s the difference?
Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 11:41 am
by Stewart Reuben
Have you never seen a chessplayer cause a piece to topple over? In Beijing for the World Mind Sports Olympiad that cost Jovanka Houska to lose a game.
When Mo runs he is displacing his body up and down. Ice skating would have been a batter choice.
Re: Chess is not a sport but a game. So what’s the difference?
Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 11:56 am
by Nick Burrows
Chris Wardle wrote: ↑Tue Mar 13, 2018 11:03 am
Computers don't experience mental or physical stress. Are you saying that I'm playing a sport if my chess.com opponent is a real person, but I'm not playing a sport if they're cheating and using a computer?
Its a sport when 2 people are competing.
Just like when you play table tennis vs a robot or a wall, it is not a sport.
Re: Chess is not a sport but a game. So what’s the difference?
Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 12:17 pm
by Chris Goodall
Stewart Reuben wrote: ↑Tue Mar 13, 2018 11:41 am
Have you never seen a chessplayer cause a piece to topple over? In Beijing for the World Mind Sports Olympiad that cost Jovanka Houska to lose a game.
Irrelevant. If you consider the possibility of knocking pieces over essential to chess, then blind players aren't playing chess.
Stewart Reuben wrote: ↑Tue Mar 13, 2018 11:41 am
When Mo runs he is displacing his body up and down. Ice skating would have been a better choice.
Ice skating only works because gravity pushes the skate down onto the ice and melts it.
Nick Burrows wrote: ↑Tue Mar 13, 2018 11:56 am
Its a sport when 2 people are competing.
Just like when you play table tennis vs a robot or a wall, it is not a sport.
And in chess you don't necessarily know whether you're playing against another person or against a computer. If that's your definition of a sport then you might think you've taken part in a sport when actually you haven't, because your opponent on the other side of the world was using computer assistance. That strikes me as ridiculous.
Re: Chess is not a sport but a game. So what’s the difference?
Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 12:28 pm
by Nick Burrows
And in chess you don't necessarily know whether you're playing against another person or against a computer. If that's your definition of a sport then you might think you've taken part in a sport when actually you haven't, because your opponent on the other side of the world was using computer assistance. That strikes me as ridiculous.
Competitive chess is played in person. Part of the reason for that is to prevent/monitor cheating. The recent experiments with online competition, correspondingly have strong anti-cheating measures.
In any sport, is it really 'sport' if a competitor successfully cheats? Be it with drugs, computer assistance, bribes, bionic hands or whatever...
Re: Chess is not a sport but a game. So what’s the difference?
Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 12:35 pm
by Chris Goodall
Nick Burrows wrote: ↑Tue Mar 13, 2018 12:28 pm
In any sport, is it really 'sport' if a competitor successfully cheats? Be it with drugs, computer assistance, bribes, bionic hands or whatever...
Yes. The alternative would be absurd. If you're an Olympic gold medalist, does it diminish the "sportiness" of your achievement if it turns out the silver medalist was using performance-enhancing drugs? Of course not. It elevates it.
Re: Chess is not a sport but a game. So what’s the difference?
Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 2:12 pm
by Nick Burrows
So to recap;
It is "ridiculous" to define chess as a sport because you do not know if your opponent is cheating.
Yet, when your opponent cheats in other sports, it enhances the "sportiness"
After proposing an interesting definition of sport, it turns out that your logic has zero gravity
Re: Chess is not a sport but a game. So what’s the difference?
Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 2:21 pm
by Chris Goodall
Nick Burrows wrote: ↑Tue Mar 13, 2018 2:12 pm
So to recap;
It is "ridiculous" to define chess as a sport because you do not know if your opponent is cheating.
Yet, when your opponent cheats in other sports, it enhances the "sportiness"
After proposing an interesting definition of sport, it turns out that your logic has zero gravity
Well done, you've spotted the absurdity of your own definition of sport taken to its logical conclusion.