CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Personally I see it as a mental sport. It is a mentally challenging game that requires key movements, excellent anticipation skills, and some great strategies and some tactical awareness of the board.
I support ^ ,Chess is a mental sport that takes skill, anticipation and strategy, P.S anyone want to challenge me hit me up, I have a ventrilo ,skype to play some games with live chat.
Sport: Physical activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively.
If they even lift a finger and its conpetitive I will call ot a sport. Chess can be deemed as a sport. The brain is going through some physical things. Technically its physical. So it can be called a sport. You have to physically move the pieces and by that we can call it a sport.
Well going by Google definition Sport; An activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others.
Physical Exertion; physical effort, to strain or stress You shouldn't be straining or stressing yourself to lift a finger. We can all agree that should be a very strain-less task.
Yes mentally exhausting not physically exhausting. The body and mind work as one. When the mind "runs out of fuel" the body fails to act. When the body becomes strained from physically workout the mind may fail to function properly, but then to further explain any of this I would have to get into psychology, human anatomy etc. (because some people actually innately get energy and function better from physical exerting themselves), but ain't nobody got time for dat.
You said physical exertion is straining, you did not specify mental or physical. The point is, they're very related. Just a short passage from an article by Rune Vik-Hansen:
"However, today we know that any corporeal motion starts off with electric impulses subconsciously triggered in the oubliettes of the brain. The brain processing a 100 million million (0.1 quadrillion) instructions per second (daily activities) and the speed of thought clocked in to somewhere between 0.5-100 m/s (between 550 and 750 milliseconds for the information or perception of something to reach the brain and to be comprehended and interpreted), testify to motion. Because external corporeal motion, arms and legs, depends on internal cerebral motion, not yet clear is why external corporeal motion should weigh heavier concerning the definition of sports or athletics.
In other words, there is no principal difference between Magnus lifting his arm and sacking a kniggeth or Petter (Northug, Norwegian cross-country skier) lifting his poles and stroking himself forward; both actions spring from subconsciously triggered impulses in the brain. Strokes and chess moves have the same source. And voila! We have compared apples with oranges!
We may therefore conclude that the definitions of sports and athletics are not based on what is really going in but on what we observe and stem from a time before organised tournament chess and insights into the brain. We see arms and legs but not neurons and synapses."
Since we are considering all of those facts and details we can now consider video games as sports. Playing Soul Calibur or any fighting/button smashing games, remembering all those tough combos and being able to chain them together with heighten reflexes is extremely tough. It just looks like games, but there is a whole lot more going on within the body that can be seen by the naked eye. And you may think the game is easy, but you are just not playing a tough opponent.
Again. Completely missedy argument. Must I highlight it for you?
If you are only going to deem something a sport because of its physical appearance to the eye that is improper. One should judge it by the true physical activity in the brain between the Neurons and Synapses.
Please, stay with my argument. This is the true physical reactions in the brain. This should deem what can be a sport and what could not.
Well, I am just trying to illuminate that with what you said, you aren't far from classifying chair-sitting as a sport.
I mean in all honesty, if I am going through my tenth hour of sitting, looking my opponent intensely in the eye, wouldn't it be a sport in some weird sense?
I don't think we would call it a sport, we would call it ridiculous. And I don't think it's because there isn't multiple federations backing chair-sitting up. I think it's because you aren't moving around like you are when playing football.
Chess may be tough on your body, it may promote useful skills like sequential thinking, but the same goes for chair-sitting. It is tough on your body and it promotes resistance to pressure ulcers. Why won't we consider chair-sitting a sport then? Because we aren't moving around when we play chair-sitting, therefore it isn't a sport. Equally, chess shouldn't be considered a sport for the same reason. You aren't moving around a lot when you play chess.
Find me a chair sitting federation. Then show me where they deem it as a sport.
Chess may be tough on your body, it may promote useful skills like sequential thinking, but the same goes for chair-sitting. It is tough on your body and it promotes resistance to pressure ulcers. Why won't we consider chair-sitting a sport then? Because we aren't moving around when we play chair-sitting, therefore it isn't a sport. Equally, chess shouldn't be considered a sport for the same reason. You aren't moving around a lot when you play chess.
I highly disagree. For one a typical human will only deem chess as something below the sport because the quantity of effort isnt visible. Neurons and synapses are highlu active in a chess game but since we do not see them we just assume it isnt a sport? Is there a chair sitting federation? Highly doubt. Could it be a sport? Look at the activity between neurons and synapses and tell me. Judging a sport by only what the eye can see isn't a fair system of judgment.
No you aren't disagreeing with me. I agree with you that chess is physically tough.
For one a typical human will only deem chess as something below the sport because the quantity of effort isnt visible.
Actually I read somewhere that world finals in chess are about as demanding as running a marathon. Chess is indeed tough. But notice that chair-sitting is also tough, it even succeeds in your neuron and synapses challenge (sitting for tenths of hours still would require tremendous self control, which means that we are forcing our brain to work in a specific way; just like with chess). But dispite the fact that chair-sitting gets an A+ for our challenge, we still wouldn't call it a sport.
What I am saying that the most obvious explanation for we wouldn't call chair-sitting a sport is because it doesn't imply movement of the body. There could be other reasons, like the fact that there isn't a chair-sitting federation, yet I don't think that's such a good explanation. Football would still be a sport if only two guys were playing it in the world.
So if we are going to accept the 'you aren't moving your body in chair-sitting' explanation, then you should equally apply that explanation to chess. If you want to maintain that chair-sitting isn't a sport while chess still is then you need to find another explanation that makes chair-sitting not a sport.
What I am saying that the most obvious explanation for we wouldn't call chair-sitting a sport is because it doesn't imply movement of the body. There could be other reasons, like the fact that there isn't a chair-sitting federation, yet I don't think that's such a good explanation. Football would still be a sport if only two guys were playing it in the world.So if we are going to accept the 'you aren't moving your body in chair-sitting' explanation, then you should equally apply that explanation to chess. If you want to maintain that chair-sitting isn't a sport while chess still is then you need to find another explanation that makes chair-sitting not a sport.
Chair sitting can be a sport. Judge it by the neurons and synapses activity and deem it as you which. However chess regardless of what people say is still a sport. Chess fires the neurons and synapses into high gear. That is why I call it a sport. If you can show me that chair sitting uses as many neurons as a regular sport I will believe you.
Chess fires the neurons and synapses into high gear. That is why I call it a sport. If you can show me that chair sitting uses as many neurons as a regular sport I will believe you.
I think that's a sensible position to take. Maybe it would be a good idea to describe in detail how intense the mental activity should be in order for something to be a sport, but I don't know how we would go about doing that. Also, I have no clue how mentally tough chair sitting would be. :)
Exactly. The amount of physical exertion that chess entails is enormous. I've seen quite a few overweight players who drop out of tournaments simply because they lack the physical stamina necessary to perform.
That makes everything a sport than. Just because it is competitive doesn't make it a sport. Are you saying as long as fat people are unable to do it, it is a sport?
Everything involves moving, we haven't developed virtual reality. So, anything competitive would involve a physical aspect as well. Therefore, yes you are saying that competition implies sport.
Why do you think it is that many fat people can't do it?
I have no idea, you haven't actually described how it is physical in any way. For all we know, it is mental exhaustion. And, fat people are just not good with exhaustion.
One needs to be fit to be mentally alert and the body is affected by a weekend of sitting in a tournament. Due to it's competitiveness it can be considered as a sport. Who can forget that cold war match between brilliant Bobby Fischer and the legendary Russian GrandMaster.
Yes! I have been playing competitively in tournaments for years and I can honestly say the atmosphere, competitive nature, and physical demands are very similar to other sports. Lizzie is absolutely correct.
I have played competitive basketball. I have played chess, but not competitively. The only way chess could be anywhere close to that is adding in a treadmill.
If you have never experienced an actual competitive chess tournament, you can't really make that call. Even at the top level, training routines consist of a great deal of running and fitness, which can be attributed to the physical nature of competing.
Just because physical activity helps promote brain health and your competition requires a strong mind does not mean that a mind competition suddenly becomes a physical sport.
Until you have played a competitive game for 12 hours straight you won't understand, it's a unique kind of physical demand. I'm on your side, chess isn't a sport, but don't say it isn't physically demanding until you try it.
Physicality is the only argument against it. Chess is back by a few federations and is held world wide and each federation deems it as a sport. What defines a sport? All of them are games aren't they? Are of them required participation? Do they all require teamwork? No. Neurons and synapses should judge the action as a sport. But we only see arms and legs so since American are obsessed with seeing the measurements themselves people dont seem chess as a sport.
Sport: Physical activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively.
Your definition of sport requires physicality. I am not sure why I should read the rest of your post.
But, I did. Just because I say something is a sport does not make a sport. So, just because a federation says it is a sport doesn't mean it is a sport.
You failed to realize my main argument. It is not a fair process of judgment to judge what is a sport by only what the eye can see. You should be thanking the Synapses and Neurons for what they do. That should judge what is a sport and what not. That is a true basic physical feat of power. Not some false embodimemt of judgment.
A sport doesn't have to be something that you have to move around and be active. It can be a mind sport. For example, debating is also considered as a sport, so right now we all are actually playing a sport. Chess is likewise the same. It also is a sport for the mind. How? It is because it makes you think harder and more logically, therefore i consider it as a sport.
Sport always increase some people's skills. it doesn't mean that sport should increase ONlY physical skills. Chess requires the ability to keep calm for a very long time. so chess' players HAVE TO work hard to improve that ability. This is not counting the fact that they have to CONSTANTLY develop their minds. So if other sportsmens day by day are improving their Physical skills, chess players are improving their mental skills with the same diligence
Chess is a game that has lasted for more than a millenium, and it takes an immense amount of brain power to play. Chess is an incredible strategy game that takes a lot of skill, and the best part is that it doesn't matter what physical strength you have.
It really depends on your view of the definition of sport. Most consider it an activity with physical exertion, skill, competition, a set of rules, and spectators. I think many would put mental exertion in that definition as well. chess has been recognized as an Olympic sport since 2000 and was an event at the 2006 Asian Olympics at Doha again at the 2010 Guangzhou Olympics and will be in the 2020 Tokyo summer Olympics as well.Although I agree that we need to be physical, we need to admit that brains will almost always get us farther in life then strength and we also need to admit that chess is a sport.
Chess is a real sport. Anyone who denies this has simply never played a professional match. There is a special technique for maintaining the physical and mental work of a chess player during competitions. This is not much different from the work of a football player or boxer) Those who understand the basics can place bets on their favorites - https://melbet-ca.com/ You just need to always keep in mind that chess is not a static sport and unexpected surprises can arise.
Chess is a competition, and no more a sport than debate or video games. Sports are a sub-category of competition, and are usually pretty boring as they require minimal thought to watch (fun to play though), chess is much better.
Just my opinions, I didn't even look up the definition of sports.
I respect your reasoning. I guess this might be why I respect world-class chess players more than athletes. Athletes don't have to be innovative, in the sense that in order to be great, they simply have to be more talented, stronger, or faster than the next guy. That's just my take.
Isn't that basically the same thing with chest? You have to be smarter, think clearly and be able to think ahead better than the next guy. The details are different, but same situation o.0
No. To be truly great in chess, one has to be innovative in opening theory to some degree, find new middlegame plans and find the best ways to prepare for certain opponents.
Bring smart does not necessarily translate to chess talent.
one has to be innovative in opening theory to some degree, find new middlegame plans and find the best ways to prepare for certain opponents You do that in sports as well...
Athletes don't have to be innovative, in the sense that in order to be great, they simply have to be more talented, stronger, or faster than the next guy.
Well judging by this statement here, you obviously have a meek perspective on sports anyway.
So i can understand why you would think that. I actually thought this way as well until I started to learn the mechanics of tennis. I now realized it's much more complex than it looks. I know can't convince you though, you would have to experience it yourself as I have. The aspects are indeed intrinsic to chess, but not only to chess.
I don't think you really understand my point though. I'm aware that many sports can be extremely complex, yet chess seems to be the most reliant on innovation.
Oh wow, the irony. I also prefer to watch someone play a video game to watch someone play a sport. Even though I;d rather play a sport than a video game.
The debate is framed specifically to look for opinions, that's why I didn't just post the definition like I usually do. We are on the right side fact wise, right?
Sports have varying degrees of emphasis on the mind and body or combination of the two. Sports are mainly about competition, while physicality is an aspect of it.
Also, to further push my other point: Who decides what is a sport?
The reasoning function in the brain does. If they are lacking this they'll misunderstand and just use words the way they feel like they should be used regardless of if they are using it the right way and since reasoning is out the door, anyone who would try to use reasoning to correct them would be wasting their own time because the person who is lacking in the reasoning function will never understand.
So my answer is. Someone who actually understands. :L
Again, I would argue that what you're putting forth is extremely arbitrary. The brain alone cannot determine what a sport is without some kind of input regarding sports. Many people have different ideas regarding sport, therefore any misunderstanding is not due to a lack of reasoning.
Yes they are wrong. They just got tired of all the people complaining and decided to call it a sport since they got enough votes to do so. Enough people like
And don't get me wrong, chess is a great game, mentally stimulating and challenging to play(given you have a good opponent), but it does not fit the criteria for being a sport. The fact that it doesn't meet the physical requirement is the why it can't be a sport.
No way can chess be considered to be a sport. A sport involves physical exertion and a person/team to show physical skill and ability. Chess, whilst it takes just as much skill as a sport, is only a mental activity testing a persons mental capacity, anticipation and intelligence, without involving any physical exertion.
I define sports as being athletic. The only movement you do it chess is move the piece. Chess is more of a mental game. It's like saying that math is a sport.
I would not consider chess a sport because it does not require physical exertion nor does it physically challenge the body. Chess is a game, a pastime. Calling chess a sport would be similar to calling playing video games a sport.
Chess is a battle of the mind. It’s the best of its kind. Similar stuff would be like Super Smash Bros. They have legit tournaments for that and it’s not a sport, but it’s still a battle of some sort. Blackjack is a game not a sport, but it can be competitive.