Vote here to see if chess is or is not a sport.

Hello Dark Archer and welcome to CFC.

I think it is a sport, but it depends on how you define sport.

I personally don't think it is, no more than Civ is a sport. They are both just games.

No its a game. Sport should involve some manual dexterity.

Originally posted by col
No its a game. Sport should involve some manual dexterity.
but that could include darts - which imo is a game. Sports without hands - hmm there must be some, anyway isnt a reasonable level of physical fitness nedded?

Chess is a board game.

Originally posted by prettyvacant

but that could include darts - which imo is a game. Sports without hands - hmm there must be some, anyway isnt a reasonable level of physical fitness nedded?

Yes - I'd argue for darts being a sport. It is in the same category of sports as bowls, curling, archery, shooting and other target sports. That probably means snooker is a sport too.

I think physical skill should be involved but not necessarily physical strength.

It all depends on your definition of sport...

Isnt that the point? What is your definition of sport?

Originally posted by col
Isnt that the point? What is your definition of sport?

I thought the point was if chess was a sport? :confused:

My definition of sport:

"Competitive event, with a documented set of rules, enforced by an officail, requiring skill, talent and training to perform at a high level"

Which makes chess a sport, IMHO...

Ah, semantic quibbling, the sport of the gods.

Or should that be....

Originally posted by Lambert Simnel
Ah, semantic quibbling, the sport of the gods.


:goodjob: :lol:

Always good for heated discussion.

Though I can agree with Darkness' defenition, I think it can be said a lot easier:

Any competitive event is sport. And thus so is the training before.

I have played football, hockey, bridge, chess and conducted in official classic rallies. I consider all of them sports.

The only exception I'd like to make, is jury sports! That is absolutely ridiculous. It should be banned (just like using the term soccer).
I have no problems with a referee that checks the behaviour of players. There will always be mistakes.
But a complete subjective jury, like in figure skating or snowboard free style..... :vomit:

Originally posted by Stapel
Though I can agree with Darkness' defenition, I think it can be said a lot easier:

Any competitive event is sport. And thus so is the training before.

I have played football, hockey, bridge, chess and conducted in official classic rallies. I consider all of them sports.

The only exception I'd like to make, is jury sports! That is absolutely ridiculous. It should be banned (just like using the term soccer).
I have no problems with a referee that checks the behaviour of players. There will always be mistakes.
But a complete subjective jury, like in figure skating or snowboard free style..... :vomit:

Yeah, chess is really a sport IMO too.

However, on the jury sports, I beg to differ. Of course a jury can make mistakes, and can be bribed, but they are generally trustworthy. This is usually ascertained (for want of a better word) by removing the highest and lowest marks, or as in figure skating nowadays, by a computer picking a certain amount of judges randomly. The jury in a sport like ski jumping for example (which will mean nothing to you since you're Dutch, but never mind) consist of five judges completely separate from each other. Three of them count, but you never know which of the three, because highest and lowest marks are disregarded. And the judges are from five different nations as well (although I rarely see judges giving better marks to their athletes - not more than what should be accepted). And diving - that certainly requires great skill, that shouldn't be considered a sport? There is no other way of measuring how "good" a dive is, other by what impression it makes on other people, therefore the judges and the jury is needed.

Originally posted by Håkon


Yeah, chess is really a sport IMO too.

However, on the jury sports, I beg to differ. Of course a jury can make mistakes, and can be bribed, but they are generally trustworthy. This is usually ascertained (for want of a better word) by removing the highest and lowest marks, or as in figure skating nowadays, by a computer picking a certain amount of judges randomly. The jury in a sport like ski jumping for example (which will mean nothing to you since you're Dutch, but never mind) consist of five judges completely separate from each other. Three of them count, but you never know which of the three, because highest and lowest marks are disregarded. And the judges are from five different nations as well (although I rarely see judges giving better marks to their athletes - not more than what should be accepted). And diving - that certainly requires great skill, that shouldn't be considered a sport? There is no other way of measuring how "good" a dive is, other by what impression it makes on other people, therefore the judges and the jury is needed.

Hey, since I can remember I watch Garmisch on january the 1st!

But, I think the jury part should vanish!
Especially ski jumping is the perfect example! Remember the first V-jumps?

Point made!

I think that if a game is over, the winner should be known! If the result is not clear, because we have to wait for the jury.... Man then something is wrong!

Originally posted by Stapel


Hey, since I can remember I watch Garmisch on january the 1st!

But, I think the jury part should vanish!
Especially ski jumping is the perfect example! Remember the first V-jumps?

Point made!

I think that if a game is over, the winner should be known! If the result is not clear, because we have to wait for the jury.... Man then something is wrong!

:cool: Didn't know that was part of your New Year's tradition as well, I just assumed that because you had no good athletes you didn't watch it. There were even some Austrian guy who jumped for Netherlands a couple of years ago :lol: - think his mum was Dutch or something.

Anyway, to your point, the V-jumps weren't as stylish (according to the judges - I think they're much nicer), but the jumpers used them because they got more points for length. The jury eventually realised that it was just as nice, and gave them points for it.

And besides, in ski jumping you still have to wait for the lengths to be measured - in fact, often that is what takes the longest time these days, not setting marks from the judges.

If a guy gets a really good jump, far down the hill, but fails to land properly and waves his arms a lot, he shouldn't get as many points as a guy who has perfectly straight arms, does a great landing etc. IMO. But I have a feeling I won't convince you...

not a sport, unless it's the speed chess one. that was going nuts! trying to move so fast they knocked over pieces trying to take their turn. now that makes a sport!

but in reality, no, it's not a sport. not a physical game.

I don't think it is a sport, because you don't have to be athletic.

I don't really think so, its just my opinion though... ;)

Chess is probably a sport

Originally posted by Håkon


:cool: Didn't know that was part of your New Year's tradition as well, I just assumed that because you had no good athletes you didn't watch it. There were even some Austrian guy who jumped for Netherlands a couple of years ago :lol: - think his mum was Dutch or something.

Anyway, to your point, the V-jumps weren't as stylish (according to the judges - I think they're much nicer), but the jumpers used them because they got more points for length. The jury eventually realised that it was just as nice, and gave them points for it.

And besides, in ski jumping you still have to wait for the lengths to be measured - in fact, often that is what takes the longest time these days, not setting marks from the judges.

If a guy gets a really good jump, far down the hill, but fails to land properly and waves his arms a lot, he shouldn't get as many points as a guy who has perfectly straight arms, does a great landing etc. IMO. But I have a feeling I won't convince you...

The jury element I dislike is not completely black&white. Any sport has rules and a referee or jury to judge players or situations. Point is: As long as these rules can be used in a clear and objective way, there is no problem.

If it were up to me, football assistant referees will take place behind a set of monitors starting tomorrow!

To use the ski-jump example: It is quite easy to determine if someone did a good landing or not. So I can accept that. But the V jump... That is a matter of taste 100%.

And if I develop a very special way of waving my arms during the jump, which increases the jump with 10 metres? what am I doing then? Streching the boundaries and limits? Or raping the style rules?

I understand the rule is there to prevent lucky louzy jumpers to win by a once in a lifetime superjump.

And Haakon,

Since you must know! Can you reveil the secrets of scoring points?

5 jury members that give 0-20 points. Only 3 count, so usually a result around 45 or so for the top jumpers.
Say the jump is 100 metres, what is the final score then? All I know it is not 145.......

Originally posted by Stapel


The jury element I dislike is not completely black&white. Any sport has rules and a referee or jury to judge players or situations. Point is: As long as these rules can be used in a clear and objective way, there is no problem.

If it were up to me, football assistant referees will take place behind a set of monitors starting tomorrow!

To use the ski-jump example: It is quite easy to determine if someone did a good landing or not. So I can accept that. But the V jump... That is a matter of taste 100%.

And if I develop a very special way of waving my arms during the jump, which increases the jump with 10 metres? what am I doing then? Streching the boundaries and limits? Or raping the style rules?

I understand the rule is there to prevent lucky louzy jumpers to win by a once in a lifetime superjump.

And Haakon,

Since you must know! Can you reveil the secrets of scoring points?

5 jury members that give 0-20 points. Only 3 count, so usually a result around 45 or so for the top jumpers.
Say the jump is 100 metres, what is the final score then? All I know it is not 145.......

Well, I see your point. I'd say that you are revolutionising the sport, which has happened a lot of times - at the start, everybody is against it, then they change the rules and then it's OK again. There is a set of official rules, and the jumpers should be able to know them. What I dislike personally is the way judges automatically give poor marks to jumpers who start early - there is a Czech guy who is really stylish in air, never moves a muscle on the way down, always has perfect landings...yet he only gets 18.5 out of 20 because he starts early on. The best guys, like Malysz, Hannawald and Ljoekelsoey, get better marks cos they jump later. That bugs me, and I agree that that's unfair.

As for the points system (this is taught to every Norwegian at age 3 :p):

There is a critical point set for each hill (Garmisch is 115m, I think most other hills are 120 apart from the ski flying ones). This critical points gives 60 length points. For each additional meter in the 115/120m hills, you score an extra 1.8 points, but if you jump shorter than 120m, you are deducted 1.8 points for each meter. Then the judges' marks are added - the highest and lowest are discarded, and the three others are added up.

Example: Roar Ljoekelsoey jumps 123.5m in Garmisch and gets 19.5, 19, 19, 19, 18.5 (I wish). 123.5m - 115m = 8.5 m * 1.8 p/m + 60 p = 75.3 p for length. Then add 19 + 19 + 19 = 57 p. 75.3 p + 57 p = 132.3 p.

And the top jumpers usually get more like 55 for style - 18.5 and 19 is normal marks for the best. 45 is for very poor jumpers, who doesn't land properly, move his muscles a lot, looks uncertain in the air and stuff (3 x 15)

Funny, the Norwegian commentators explain this almost before every competition...guess the Dutch ones don't know the system either ;)

Originally posted by Håkon


Well, I see your point. I'd say that you are revolutionising the sport, which has happened a lot of times - at the start, everybody is against it, then they change the rules and then it's OK again. There is a set of official rules, and the jumpers should be able to know them. What I dislike personally is the way judges automatically give poor marks to jumpers who start early - there is a Czech guy who is really stylish in air, never moves a muscle on the way down, always has perfect landings...yet he only gets 18.5 out of 20 because he starts early on. The best guys, like Malysz, Hannawald and Ljoekelsoey, get better marks cos they jump later. That bugs me, and I agree that that's unfair.

As for the points system (this is taught to every Norwegian at age 3 :p):

There is a critical point set for each hill (Garmisch is 115m, I think most other hills are 120 apart from the ski flying ones). This critical points gives 60 length points. For each additional meter in the 115/120m hills, you score an extra 1.8 points, but if you jump shorter than 120m, you are deducted 1.8 points for each meter. Then the judges' marks are added - the highest and lowest are discarded, and the three others are added up.

Example: Roar Ljoekelsoey jumps 123.5m in Garmisch and gets 19.5, 19, 19, 19, 18.5 (I wish). 123.5m - 115m = 8.5 m * 1.8 p/m + 60 p = 75.3 p for length. Then add 19 + 19 + 19 = 57 p. 75.3 p + 57 p = 132.3 p.

And the top jumpers usually get more like 55 for style - 18.5 and 19 is normal marks for the best. 45 is for very poor jumpers, who doesn't land properly, move his muscles a lot, looks uncertain in the air and stuff (3 x 15)

Funny, the Norwegian commentators explain this almost before every competition...guess the Dutch ones don't know the system either ;)

:thanx: A mystery reveiled!

BTW: I meant 55... just a poor way of using math..... :wallbash:

The Dutch commentators use phrases like 'critical point' and 'great style no muscle vibrations visible' in a way like they know all about it. Also the 3 out of 5 jury rule is mentioned a lot. The 60 length points might have been mentioned once or twice, but the 1.8 factor is new to me!

Another thing: Norwegians learn to ski-jump, before they learn to walk, don't they?

Great threadjack ;) !

Originally posted by Stapel
Great threadjack ;) !

If it wasnt such an interesting discussion I'd :rocket2:

Originally posted by Stapel


:thanx: A mystery reveiled!

BTW: I meant 55... just a poor way of using math..... :wallbash:

The Dutch commentators use phrases like 'critical point' and 'great style no muscle vibrations visible' in a way like they know all about it. Also the 3 out of 5 jury rule is mentioned a lot. The 60 length points might have been mentioned once or twice, but the 1.8 factor is new to me!

Another thing: Norwegians learn to ski-jump, before they learn to walk, don't they?

Great threadjack ;) !

Yep, fantastic threadjack, even col agrees - from chess to ski jumping :D

Norwegians learn to ski almost at the time they learn to walk, but they don´t usually send three-year-olds down ski-jumps (well, only very small jumps)

The 1.8 point factor actually changes for the type of hill - a small hill (K90) has 2 points for each meter, and ski flying (K185 - like Planica in Slovenia, Kulm in Austria, Oberstdorf in Germany) has only 1.2 points for each meter.

Now you´re equipped to watch Eurosport every weekend if you want to ;)

Great threadjack. I've watched ski jumping on and off since the time of canadian jumperHorst Bulau (sp?). My favorite jumper had to be Eddie the Eagle in the '88 winter olympics in Calgary. What a display of grit and determination.

OT: Chess is a board game, not a sport.

I'm in agreement with whoever said physical skill is required for a sport. IMHO, chess is not a sport.

hell no. you have to be able to brake a sweat in physical activity. for example:
Basketball
Baseball
Football
Hockey
Soccer
Rugby

You have to work out to train for a sport. Lift weights, sit-ups,push-ups,crunchs.
you don't work out for chess or any other board or video game.

Originally posted by luke ka boom
hell no. you have to be able to brake a sweat in physical activity. for example:
Basketball
Baseball
Football
Hockey
Soccer
Rugby

You have to work out to train for a sport. Lift weights, sit-ups,push-ups,crunchs.
you don't work out for chess or any other board or video game.

So... Golf? Bowling? Archery? No sweating in any of them, unless it's pretty warm out.

No, chess is definitely not a sport...a sport must involve some form of physical exertion...chess can be played remotely by a computer, or just by saying a move, or by correspondence (letters).

An activity like darts, or archery, means the player must bend the bow and take aim, or throw his dart. Chess can be played merely by saying something or writing something.

This means chess is definitely not a sport.

Chess is a game, with only the excercise of the mind involved. To truly be a sport, one must have to have some sort of physical movement to cause one to perspire and muscles to scream and hurt.

IMHO.

Definetly not a sport!

I voted in this thread long time ago.

The thread that refuses to die.

Ok - I'm gonna put it quietly to sleep now.

Feel free to open another thread on skijumping :rolleyes: