If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
Curling easily meets the definition of getting young people into physical shape. This is one aspect you fail to understand. It might not be cross country running, but its not chess either. Somewhere in the middle. And I've participated and competed in almost every sport that exists at some point. In fact, for 75% of each team, Curling is more physically taxing then Baseball and Volleyball, for example. Are you going to argue that Baseball doesn't keep young people active ?
Look, its obvious from your posts that you NOTHING about Curling. Painfully obvious. You do no service to chess by trying to make these opinions.
I would indeed argue that baseball might not be the best sport for kids to play if you want to keep them active. I've seen too many little kids sitting down in the outfield picking grass.
And I doubt that curling is as physically taxing as volleyball. A lot of seniors, whom I can't imagine diving for a volleyball or jumping up to spike it, I could easily imagine enjoying curling - though I'm sure there are some active seniors who do play volleyball.
I don't doubt in the least that curling helps seniors "stay active." But there's a difference between a senior staying active and a young person getting into shape. If you're going to expand the definition to include "helping people stay active," I think chess could be recommended to seniors for similar reasons - though I think some seniors find weekend chess tournaments a bit too taxing.
Did you ever play volleyball? It is much more active and athletic than curling. :p
Sorry, but I've played both, and your statement is clearly wrong. No doubts on this. Perhaps what you are envisioning is the workout
regiment that most Volleyball coaches insist on for their players. But this in fact also the case for Curling at the elite levels now ( any age ).
Ae you going to tell me that John Morris and Kevin Martin are not in shape enough to be effective Volleyball players ? Please spare me the
humour I have to remember its chess players talking here.
Last edited by Duncan Smith; Thursday, 17th November, 2011, 05:29 PM.
bad mouthng Curling ( for example ) doesn't help your cause
Duncan, you really don't understand me. I'm NOT bad-mouthing curling. I'm just saying that it's not as easy to come up with a definition of sport that excludes chess as it might seem.
The conversation so far seems to have gone something like this:
A - someone who thinks chess is obviously not a sport
B - a chess player
A: A sport is something that uses the body physically.
B: Chess uses the brain, and it's just as physical as any other body part.
A: (Uh-oh! My definition is too loose.) OK, then a sport is physically taxing.
B: Weekend chess tournaments are physically taxing.
A: (Uh-oh! My definition is still too loose.) OK, then a sport in itself makes you physically strong and healthy
B: But then curling, golf, baseball, etc. aren't necessarily sports, depending on what level, what age, or how seriously they're played.
A: (Uh-oh! Now my definition is too tight.) OK, then physical training and working out help you compete in a sport.
B: But physical training and working out help you compete in chess. Many amateur and elite players include working out in their chess tournament preparation.
A: (Uh-oh! Now my definition is too loose yet again.) OK, then a sport is something that keeps you active even if it doesn't necessarily make you physically strong.
B: But baseball doesn't always keep kids active, and chess does help some people stay active.
A: (Uh-oh! Now my definition is both too loose and too tight) Ummm... you're just stupid if you think chess is a sport!
B: ...
My question is, if it's so obvious that chess is not a sport, why does "A" have to work so hard to come up with a definition of "sport" that includes most of what everyone normally considers a sport (like curling, Duncan!) and excludes chess?
Did you ever play volleyball? It is much more active and athletic than curling. :p
The curling federation has told players to lose weight. I guess they wanted them to look like athletes before they represented Canada at the Olympics. You can google that.
Duncan, you really don't understand me. I'm NOT bad-mouthing curling. I'm just saying that it's not as easy to come up with a definition of sport that excludes chess as it might seem.
The conversation so far seems to have gone something like this:
A - someone who thinks chess is obviously not a sport
B - a chess player
A: A sport is something that uses the body physically.
B: Chess uses the brain, and it's just as physical as any other body part.
A: (Uh-oh! My definition is too loose.) OK, then a sport is physically taxing.
B: Weekend chess tournaments are physically taxing.
A: (Uh-oh! My definition is still too loose.) OK, then a sport in itself makes you physically strong and healthy
B: But then curling, golf, baseball, etc. aren't necessarily sports, depending on what level, what age, or how seriously they're played.
A: (Uh-oh! Now my definition is too tight.) OK, then physical training and working out help you compete in a sport.
B: But physical training and working out help you compete in chess. Many amateur and elite players include working out in their chess tournament preparation.
A: (Uh-oh! Now my definition is too loose yet again.) OK, then a sport is something that keeps you active even if it doesn't necessarily make you physically strong.
B: But baseball doesn't always keep kids active, and chess does help some people stay active.
A: (Uh-oh! Now my definition is both too loose and too tight) Ummm... you're just stupid if you think chess is a sport!
B: ...
My question is, if it's so obvious that chess is not a sport, why does "A" have to work so hard to come up with a definition of "sport" that includes most of what everyone normally considers a sport (like curling, Duncan!) and excludes chess?
I suspect that if you had not mentioned curling, Duncan would not have commented at all. As soon as I saw that reference, I could count the minutes (and counting should be a sport too, BTW).
Duncan, you really don't understand me. I'm NOT bad-mouthing curling. I'm just saying that it's not as easy to come up with a definition of sport that excludes chess as it might seem.
The conversation so far seems to have gone something like this:
A - someone who thinks chess is obviously not a sport
B - a chess player
A: A sport is something that uses the body physically.
B: Chess uses the brain, and it's just as physical as any other body part.
A: (Uh-oh! My definition is too loose.) OK, then a sport is physically taxing.
B: Weekend chess tournaments are physically taxing.
A: (Uh-oh! My definition is still too loose.) OK, then a sport in itself makes you physically strong and healthy
B: But then curling, golf, baseball, etc. aren't necessarily sports, depending on what level, what age, or how seriously they're played.
A: (Uh-oh! Now my definition is too tight.) OK, then physical training and working out help you compete in a sport.
B: But physical training and working out help you compete in chess. Many amateur and elite players include working out in their chess tournament preparation.
A: (Uh-oh! Now my definition is too loose yet again.) OK, then a sport is something that keeps you active even if it doesn't necessarily make you physically strong.
B: But baseball doesn't always keep kids active, and chess does help some people stay active.
A: (Uh-oh! Now my definition is both too loose and too tight) Ummm... you're just stupid if you think chess is a sport!
B: ...
My question is, if it's so obvious that chess is not a sport, why does "A" have to work so hard to come up with a definition of "sport" that includes most of what everyone normally considers a sport (like curling, Duncan!) and excludes chess?
Marcus, I can appreciate that you want chess to be a sport. You obviously love chess and want it to get better funding.
In your exchange between A and B above, there is a logical fallacy in the first thing that B says.
That's because what B is not considering is that sports like volleyball and curlling aren't SOLELY physical. They do involve taxing the brain, in ways that chess does and in ways that chess doesn't. Curling involves strategy and tactics, just as chess. Curling also involves split-second decision making based on temporal events and trends being observed (how much is my rock curling, will it go where I want it?), a whole different area of the brain that chess doesn't get into. When you make a move in chess, you don't have to consciously think about "Is my piece going where I want it?" (unless you're a 3-year-old, in which case chess does help your hand-eye coordination).
So what B has to prove is that chess taxes the brain so much more than volleyball or curlling that it makes up for the lack of physical (muscular) taxation.
I don't think that can be proven.
But assuming you want to argue that, let me go one step further. Let's forget for a moment about "chess: a sport or not a sport". Let's think instead about "chess: deserves govt funding or not deserves govt funding?"
I'm on the side of not deserves govt. funding, because I wonder, if chess gets govt funding, will curling funding be cut? And while I have never played curling, I do fundamentally grasp it as an activity that is good for the human being, both BODY AND MIND. Chess, I simply cannot grasp the good for the body. It is actually harmful to the body. It builds up a tremendous amount of stress and doesn't allow a physical outlet. That's a heart attack or a stroke waiting to happen.
There is only so much govt. funding to go around, and I for one would rather it go to activities that promote physical and mental health, that promote strategical and tactical thinking ALONG WITH physical activity. Chess does not fit that category.
And if you're going to argue that studies have shown that kids' involvement in chess improves their math scores.... I'll bet studies would also show that kids involvement in MATH would similarly improve their math scores, probably to a much greater degree. Let's get real here. Chess isn't something so special that it, AND ONLY IT, can improve brain functioning.
Last edited by Paul Bonham; Friday, 18th November, 2011, 02:58 AM.
Reason: Spelling of Marcus
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Duncan, you really don't understand me. I'm NOT bad-mouthing curling. I'm just saying that it's not as easy to come up with a definition of sport that excludes chess as it might seem.
The conversation so far seems to have gone something like this:
A - someone who thinks chess is obviously not a sport
B - a chess player
A: A sport is something that uses the body physically.
B: Chess uses the brain, and it's just as physical as any other body part.
A: (Uh-oh! My definition is too loose.) OK, then a sport is physically taxing.
B: Weekend chess tournaments are physically taxing.
A: (Uh-oh! My definition is still too loose.) OK, then a sport in itself makes you physically strong and healthy
B: But then curling, golf, baseball, etc. aren't necessarily sports, depending on what level, what age, or how seriously they're played.
A: (Uh-oh! Now my definition is too tight.) OK, then physical training and working out help you compete in a sport.
B: But physical training and working out help you compete in chess. Many amateur and elite players include working out in their chess tournament preparation.
A: (Uh-oh! Now my definition is too loose yet again.) OK, then a sport is something that keeps you active even if it doesn't necessarily make you physically strong.
B: But baseball doesn't always keep kids active, and chess does help some people stay active.
A: (Uh-oh! Now my definition is both too loose and too tight) Ummm... you're just stupid if you think chess is a sport!
B: ...
My question is, if it's so obvious that chess is not a sport, why does "A" have to work so hard to come up with a definition of "sport" that includes most of what everyone normally considers a sport (like curling, Duncan!) and excludes chess?
Except I got my definitions of sport from the Oxford dictionary and the definition of physical activity from the world health organization... My definition of either has never been loose. The problem is that people like you are redefining terms to suit your own purposes. Pure sophistry.
I would agree with Duncan about curling. You have obviously never swept a rock in a competitive curling game... why don't you go 'work out' in a chess game and then try to sweep with the effectiveness of a competitive curler... Trust me.. you couldn't.
But assuming you want to argue that, let me go one step further. Let's forget for a moment about "chess: a sport or not a sport". Let's think instead about "chess: deserves govt funding or not deserves govt funding?"
This was exactly my point. The problem is that much of the chess community wants to redefine the standard definition of sport to get money. The Chess community would be much better off if they pursued other avenues to generate the needed revenue.
I would argue that figure skating, gymnastics, diving and other such athletic activities are NOT sports because their method of adjudication is subjective. It seems to me that a sport needs an objective method of determining who is better: a final score, a longer distance, a faster time, whatever. At least chess does not require judges. What is the difference between figure skating and ballet except that one of them is performed with skates, the other with slippers? So why is one a sport and the other an art form?
Curiously, by this definition, both boxing and MMA only become sports if the fight ends in a knockout, and become art forms if the fight goes to the judges.
Also, I wonder if it is proper to define chess as a sport when the games do not begin with equal theoretical chances for both sides. Black is OK, but White is better. Is this properly sporting?
Curiously, by this definition, curling would be ruled out as a sport since to have the hammer to begin with is something equivalent to playing White.
My point is to repeat what I stated earlier, whether or not chess is a sport is a semantical question only.
Last edited by Brad Thomson; Friday, 18th November, 2011, 10:24 AM.
Reason: grammar
I would argue that figure skating, gymnastics, diving and other such athletic activities are NOT sports because their method of adjudication is subjective. It seems to me that a sport needs an objective method of determining who is better: a final score, a longer distance, a faster time, whatever. At least chess does not require judges. What is the difference between figure skating and ballet except that one of them is performed with skates, the other with slippers? So why is one a sport and the other an art form?
Curiously, by this definition, both boxing and MMA only become sports if the fight ends in a knockout, and become art forms if the fight goes to the judges.
Also, I wonder if it is proper to define chess as a sport when the games do not begin with equal theoretical chances for both sides. Black is OK, but White is better. Is this properly sporting?
Curiously, by this definition, curling would be ruled out as a sport since to have the hammer to begin with is something equivalent to playing White.
My point is to repeat what I stated earlier, whether or not chess is a sport is a semantical question only.
Thats because you are creating your own definition of the word 'sport'. Just because a sport has judges does not disqualify it in any way. Also, nowhere in the definition of sport does it say that both sides must start with equal theoretical chances for both sides.
Thats because you are creating your own definition of the word 'sport'. Just because a sport has judges does not disqualify it in any way. Also, nowhere in the definition of sport does it say that both sides must start with equal theoretical chances for both sides.
Are hand movements "physical exertion"? Like in weightlifting or executing chess moves :D Your (Oxford) sport definition does not require a minimum level of physical exertion for a game to become a sport. There are many low-perspiration sports (even olympic) like a handgun shooting, etc.
Sports is a very broad concept, not just professional sports we see covered by the media. Some sports are less popular than chess. I was wondering if sport requires an audience? Does a sport have to be entertaining to non-players?
I’ve participated in competitive canoeing where only teammates and family watch, but now corporations have dragon boat teams in competitions. Everyone can cheer for the people they know in whatever they’re competing in. It is the competition that is exciting to watch, the uncertainty, the aggression and accidents, but chess audiences need to understand chess to see who’s winning.
Some competitions have bar crowds but is not a sport like Rock-Paper-Scissor, trivia and beer pong. I’ve played recreational volleyball, softball and bowling where more time is spent in the bar afterwards, so not so healthy an activity. And there are physical competitions with organized leagues that aren’t usually classified as sports like Roller Derby or Ultimate Frisbee. But poker and darts makes it on the sports channels, so they must be sports. And Racing cars, bikes and boats (and go-karts and bathtubs?) are all sports. Spelling Bees have made it to TV. Chess, Bridge, Scrabble, monopoly are popular games as are the new computer games like Doom, World Of Warcraft. Even Tiddlywinks, Tetris and Sudoku have a World Championship but are not sports. Maybe the physically active wii games will become sports?
From Wikipedia:
Sport is all forms of physical activity which, through casual or organised participation, aim to use, maintain or improve physical fitness and provide entertainment to participants. Sport may be competitive, where a winner or winners can be identified by objective means, and may require a degree of skill, especially at higher levels. Hundreds of sports exist, including those for a single participant, through to those with hundreds of simultaneous participants, either in teams or competing as individuals. Some non-physical activities, such as board games and card games are sometimes referred to as sports, but a sport is generally recognised as being based in physical athleticism.
I find myself being physically and mentally exhausted after a weekender
I feel the same when I play in any card, board, or video game tournament, and yet I would never say Poker, Magic the Gathering, Advanced Squad Leader, or Call of Duty are sports despite their competitive nature.
Physical and mental exhaustion is common to many, many activities and I believe putting emphasis on physical exhaustion after a tournament just help perpetuate the myth chess players are wimps in the general public's mind. Yes, you could educate the public but that cost money and isn't the latter what chess players are really after when they talk about chess being recognized as a sports by a government entity?
Tweet
Comment