Originally posted by Tintin1963
Quite simply, a sport is anything that requires specialist footwear. Think about all major sports globally [Except swimming/diving and other water based sports].
So snooker and darts are NOT sports...and...certainly not Chess or Bridge, lol!

Any activity where a guy is in competition and might benefit from wearing a cup can be considered a sport.

One well-placed kick under the table without a cup, and somebody's flag is going to fall...

More seriously, both Karpov and Gufeld have written that chess is at the intersection of sport, art, and science.

I suspect that we English speakers are in a semantic trap, where the word "game" is artificially limiting how we classify various competitive activities, including chess.

We just want the word to encompass more than it may have been originally created to do, and we are financially motivated to shoehorn the activity into the context of the word for legalistic reasons.

First we get the lawyers to expunge the use of the word "game" in favor of "competitive human activity" or some such legalspeak, and then we can get to work. Or play, Or whatever!

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Hi Data Fly,

I've see valid arguments both for against Chess being classed as sport.

I'd not class it as a sport but it needs to get classed as a sport for the funding.
Pastimes do not get funding, art does but is chess an art?

Darts and Snooker are all about a physical skill, eye hand coordination, etc. The major point of the sport is a physical movement. You can't play darts or snooker with only your brain. The point is not how much energy you use, but whether the point of the activity is a physical event (darts and billiards) or a mental calculation (Chess and Bridge).

Again, this is just the definition of 'sport'. We can change the definition if you want.

Why not just call it a mental sport and redefine the term and then you can get funding. Of course then you can get funding for Math Olympics, Bridge, Go, Trivia contests, etc.