Chess Forum
[ mod this thread ] << - < - > - >>
| From | Message |
| ddrfreak101 3/02/2004 17:57:24 [ report this post ] |
 Subject: Is chess a sportMessage: I am restarting this thread because it because the original is filled |
| coyotefan 3/02/2004 23:33:20 [ report this post ] | STOP IT Message: PLEASE, WHO CARES ANYMORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
| commodore 3/03/2004 05:51:17 [ report this post ] | I thought I put an end to this Message: discussion with the picture in my profile giving certain proof that chess is....commodore. |
| anaxagoras 3/03/2004 08:11:33 [ report this post ] | Message: Then it's funny that coyotefan still cares enough to post! |
| ccmcacollister 3/03/2004 08:47:26 [ report this post ] | Commodore, Now I See..... Message: You have changed your Profile Picture. Maybe that DOES 'Explain It All' then! As further evidence, consider: At Saturday Swiss one player, perhaps a bit too literal minded, gave meaning to the phrase "threw away a piece", by removing one from the board & chucking it across the table at his opp! At which point both players jumped from their seats & tried to 'meet at the Pitchers Mound' . *** Immediately 2 of Pitcher's friends came forth to offer Their opinions as well. & the other-young-fool, 'Batter' was heard to exclaim in best style-of-Arnold S. ............................. "What YOU want some TOO ?" !!! ................................ But then remembered the feel of losing a game suddenly, & during the height of passion. Pitcher decided he'd been too literal-minded (or maybe just wanted his Piece returned) & for whatever reason hostilities ceased. And all ended well, with no blows, fines nor ejections. And Pitcher soon declared intent to redefine his Chess for Blood" stance. Batter came to know All better; respecting the Friends for Standing-Up, & the Pitcher for admitting his error. The TD, Batter,s best friend, calls it his favorite tournament. & the participants keep it among their Tmt Tales; even the two who stayed seated. Everyone now good friends, EVEN during Chess competition. Pitcher et al were physically fit & one athlete. Batter possessed years of martial arts training. All more fit than some Catchers or The Babe. So maybe Chess Can Be a Sport after all, if a lack of integral physicallity was the only factor missing? Though admittedly non-contact in that instance, but for the player who got "beaned" by that plastic, triple weighted King who failing his task as Monarch, was demoted to "baseball". ...... [8-D But there are other minimal-contact sports too! And it was clear this particular event produced spectator appeal, even at the unfavorable venue of Public Library. |
| fmgaijin 3/03/2004 09:48:51 [ report this post ] | Chess KO's Message: I've twice witnessed players decked at the board, once in the U.S. Open by a young, athletic player on the next board about whose at-the-board post-mortem he had issued a cease-and-desist order and the other in an international team event by a teammate whom he was perstering for the room key while his teammate was in time pressure . . . . Both players hit the deck, but only the "teammate" stayed down for the count. BTW, both "pugilists" were ejected from the events by the TD . . . |
| error 3/03/2004 18:37:43 [ report this post ] | With all due respect Message: Is this post really nessecary? I mean, I think after 50 posts it's obvious that you won't be getting a clear answer for your question, so I think the topic should be dropped. |
| atrifix 3/04/2004 13:14:54 [ report this post ] | Message: Did anyone ever really want a clear answer for this question? |
| ddrfreak101 3/04/2004 15:28:54 [ report this post ] | yes Message: I do |
| anaxagoras 3/04/2004 18:42:14 [ report this post ] | Message: there is none ddrfreak101, but life goes on. (really) |
| coyotefan 3/04/2004 18:52:29 [ report this post ] | ddrfreak101 Message: You have stated it is a sport. Please back it up. |
| bigkev 3/05/2004 05:25:23 [ report this post ] | An answer Message: Currently chess isn't considered a sport but maybe sometime in the future some authority will deem it a sport. Then chess will get lots of money and decent sponsorship, more numerous professional players with personal sponsorship, etc. Nations will support their players more openly. As to the arguments whether it is or isn't, well they would need to be put to the relevant authority whoever that is. IOC? |
| coyotefan 3/05/2004 09:56:51 [ report this post ] | IT IS A SPORT Message: I am currently doing right index finger and thumb exercises. I figure it my piece moving finger and thumb are strengthened my play will improve. I also plan on flipping my right middle finger at every opportunity. Plan on eventually eliminating the use of my index finger and using my middle finger as my main piece mover. I do figure using the longer finger will improve my play at least 20%. As I do also tend to fatigue at longer OTB tourneys, I will not enter anymore tourneys until I strengthen my left thumb and index finger as well. If I can play with either hand, I am sure this will improve my winning percentage 50%. There proof chess is a sport. |
| ccmcacollister 3/05/2004 14:14:32 [ report this post ] | Very Good Coyotefan ! Message: Your new exercises may well lead to improved circulation, and increased mental clarity therefrom. Not to say you were doing bad before. But already you've come to realize the possiblity of Chess as a sport ! Good job. [8-) Seems especially good if one had peripheral vascular disease, or perhaps diabetes. I must try them too. Of course, this is in additon to my typing on so called meaningless threads. I can only hope your exercises with strengthen my capacity to do so! For it sometimes gives me cramps now [8-( |
| honololou 3/05/2004 16:27:53 [ report this post ] | coyotefan� Message: you forgot about exercising the all-important clock hand. Now THAT is strenuous. |
| victord 3/06/2004 10:39:20 [ report this post ] | Just to add fuel to the debate .... Message: sport ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sp�rt, sprt) n. Physical activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively. A particular form of this activity. An activity involving physical exertion and skill that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often undertaken competitively. An active pastime; recreation. Mockery; jest: He made sport of his own looks. An object of mockery, jest, or play: treated our interests as sport. A joking mood or attitude: She made the remark in sport. One known for the manner of one's acceptance of rules, especially of a game, or of a difficult situation: a poor sport. Informal. One who accepts rules or difficult situations well. Informal. A pleasant companion: was a real sport during the trip. Informal. A person who lives a jolly, extravagant life. A gambler at sporting events. Biology. An organism that shows a marked change from the normal type or parent stock, typically as a result of mutation. Maine. See summercater. See Regional Note at summercater. Obsolete. Amorous dalliance; lovemaking. ................................................................................ game1 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (gm) n. An activity providing entertainment or amusement; a pastime: party games; word games. A competitive activity or sport in which players contend with each other according to a set of rules: the game of basketball; the game of gin rummy. A single instance of such an activity: We lost the first game. games An organized athletic program or contest: track-and-field games; took part in the winter games. A period of competition or challenge: It was too late in the game to change the schedule of the project. The total number of points required to win a game: One hundred points is game in bridge. The score accumulated at any given time in a game: The game is now 14 to 12. The equipment needed for playing certain games: packed the children's games in the car. A particular style or manner of playing a game: improved my tennis game with practice. Informal. An active interest or pursuit, especially one involving competitive engagement or adherence to rules: �the way the system operates, the access game, the turf game, the image game� (Hedrick Smith). A business or occupation; a line: the insurance game. An illegal activity; a racket. Informal. Evasive, trifling, or manipulative behavior: wanted a straight answer, not more of their tiresome games. A calculated strategy or approach; a scheme: I saw through their game from the very beginning. Mathematics. A model of a competitive situation that identifies interested parties and stipulates rules governing all aspects of the competition, used in game theory to determine the optimal course of action for an interested party. Wild animals, birds, or fish hunted for food or sport. The flesh of these animals, eaten as food. An object of attack, ridicule, or pursuit: The press considered the candidate's indiscretions to be game. Mockery; sport: The older children teased and made game of the newcomer. victord |
| fmgaijin 3/06/2004 11:23:25 [ report this post ] | victord Message: (1) Please identify what dictionary you are using. The "authoritative" source for English is the Oxford English Dictionary, which I cited above. The OED makes it clear that the definition you give first (primary?) is a latecomer and that the original usage (which is still primary for many speakers of English, though American speakers of English tend towards the later definitions reflected in your source) did not require any "physical" component. For example, the old phrase calling horseracing the "sport of kings" would not make any sense in your version because the kings were just sitting around watching, not "exerting" themselves at all. However, the phrase means that it was the "pastime" of kings (because they DID have the leisure to sit around watching races that most lacked, along with the resources to own horses). (2) Not only may speakers of English have differing definitions of "sport" and "game," those concepts may not translate directly into other languages whose corresponding words have still different denotations and connotations. Thus, for example, English has the words "woods" and "forest" which to an English speaker have somewhat different connotations. This can be confusing to a German speaker attempting to translate "Schwartzwald" into English. Is it "Black Woods" or "Black Forest"? The former might on the surface SEEM to mean the same, but to a native speaker of English it will imply something different than intended. Thus, some languages and cultures already put chess into the linguistic and social categories that an American speaker of English might call "sports" and others would not. Hence, to debate the terminology would be futile--each speaker will remain convinced that the meaning stored in the idiolexicon is "correct" and no amount of argument would persuade otherwise. |
| victord 3/06/2004 11:58:38 [ report this post ] | Message: I used dictionary.reference.com/ |
| hanoi_episode 3/06/2004 12:10:03 [ report this post ] | Message: Fmgaijin, From the OED definition used before: >the first Oxford English Dictionary definition: "Pleasant pastime; entertainment or >amusement; recreation, diversion." --Well, it's great to know that several hundred years ago we had a broader concept of what a sport is. But I think we both realize that words change and nowadays we generally have a narrower conception of what a sport is. However, if there are people who prefer the broader definition, that's fine. I have no problem with that, but what I do find absurd is when people began trying to show how chess was unique among board games in being a sport. Under the broad concept of what a sport is that you give, then we would also consider monopoly, scrabble, tic tac toe, checkers or chutes and ladders sports. They are pastimes just as much as chess is. And what about putting together a puzzle or watching TV, since both could be considered a "Pleasant pastime; entertainment or amusement; recreation, diversion."? That is, there really is no argument. You believe that chess, scrabble, checkers and monopoly are sports, and I may disagree, but there is in the end no way to prove one semantic interpretation over another. Sarah Tran |
| anaxagoras 3/06/2004 14:21:27 [ report this post ] | Message: How is a dictionary supposed to answer a question like "is chess a sport?" Is anyone here actually convinced that the question is about symantics? This is another case where we could make great progress if we began to make observations instead of giving definitions. |
| fmgaijin 3/06/2004 15:05:16 [ report this post ] | victord: Thanks Message: As suggested, that's a modern American English dictionary, and hence the definitions reflect American cultural assumptions about the concept of sport. |
| fmgaijin 3/06/2004 15:15:02 [ report this post ] | Sarah Tran: You've Missed the Point Message: An Erroneous Assumption: Somehow you seem to think that I personally am arguing for the assignment of chess to the linguistic category of "sport." Actually, I haven't argued one way or the other. My point was that most of the discussion in this topic has been what we linguists call "incommensurable discourse" because those postings have assumed that there exists a common concept of "sport" held by all. My post simply points out that this isn't true--that even among speakers of American English there may disagreements as to the meaning of "sport," and this only grows larger when you assume that the concept of "sport" is universal--as when you originally tried to bring in the Greeks, who tended to put ALL forms of competition in the same category rather than separate them by "physical" and "mental." Thus, I would tend to agree with your last point (with the stipulation that I personally may not believe what you've put in my mouth, but I am sure that other people DO believe that). |
| fmgaijin 3/06/2004 15:20:49 [ report this post ] | anaxagoras Message: My point is that the argument is about CULTURAL CONCEPTS (as reflected in the semantic issues noted above), which means that you're never going to persuade some Americans (for example) that chess is a sport and you're never going to persuade some Russians (for example) that it isn't. Given that, what sort of "progress" do you anticipate? Getting chess in the Olympics? Getting more competitive chess on the telly? Getting more government $$ for chess? |
| ccmcacollister 3/06/2004 16:25:11 [ report this post ] | IMHO or otherwise.... Message: I firmly believe that if it ever comes to "tinkling in a cup" then it's gotta be called a sport ! Afterall is that not part of the very newest definition of sports, a la Oylmicips.....(you know that org that hosts multinational sports competitions every 2 or 4 years, depending how you look at it, and sues everybody for trademark infringment...!?).[B-) |
| crayons 3/06/2004 17:47:44 [ report this post ] | Message: uhmmm... just my 2 cents: Soccer is a sport, yet I play in soccer "games" ... Does it really matter?? What is your definition of a sport vs. game??? (not dictionary) I personally think that you can think of it anyway you would like to and give it any name or place it under any category, but in the end; Chess itself does not change. So, find something more worthy of debate. (like I said before, "just my 2 cents") |
| anaxagoras 3/07/2004 15:05:56 [ report this post ] | fmgaijin Message: Progress on the question of whether chess is a sport would first consist in the closing of all dictionaries. Second, one could begin to actually list the similarities and dissimilarities between chess and other activities that are undeniably sports. Lastly, we would then all admit that there are many things in common and many that are different, and that there is no fact of the matter whether chess is a sport, and that we shouldn't be bothered by it. I agree with you that looking for a universal definition of a word like "sport" is folly, though I would disassociate myself from your explanation in terms of "cultural concepts," unless you are merely talking about the respective use of words. |
| coyotefan 3/07/2004 21:56:22 [ report this post ] | Ok Message: This has deteriorated into the DUMBEST post in the history of GK! |
| fmgaijin 3/07/2004 22:29:20 [ report this post ] | anaxagoras Message: Thanks for your explanation of what you would regard as "progress" in this discussion. As for your last comment, if you look back to my discussion of the words "forest/woods" vs. "wald," I'm referring to the linguistic concept of "semantic fields" associated with or "activated by" (for neurolinguists) a particular word. Those fields may differ from individual to individual based on either personal (idiolectic) or cultural/societal (dialectic) bases. In other words, my concept of "sport" may differ from yours either for personal reasons OR because the comparable word in my language/culture/society does not exactly match up with yours. Thus, an Inuit speaker has many, many words for different types of ice and snow, where all my languages have only a few. Hence, that person may make distinctions between them that I cannot readily make (or even readily understand). The difference goes beyond merely using the same word in different ways--we just don't have the same words at all!! So if that Inuit speaker and I were to argue about whether a particular snowfall is "slush" or not, it would be a fruitless discussion because that speaker may be translating my word "slush" as one of many, many ideas that culture holds about ice or snow, and we would never be able to agree about it because both of us would be "right" within our own language community but "wrong" in the other's. |
| error 3/07/2004 22:37:23 [ report this post ] | ... Message: Definitions aside ... Chess isn't a sport. Chess isn't a game. Chess is chess, and rather then arguing over what it is, why not play it? |
| ccmcacollister 3/07/2004 23:31:57 [ report this post ] | Coyotefan Message: and one of the Longest too huh, yet is NOt about GK Teams! I think thats great. Maybe its just heating up, after that dinghy remark by anaxagoras. Everyone else must know, Cultural Concepts are more diverse than, than....Than rhino viruseses ! [8-) [Conf to commodore: Prepare ye not for The Day, the number remains at 8...] |
| ccmcacollister 3/07/2004 23:45:25 [ report this post ] | anaxagoras.... Message: Just kidding, but I really don't understand what you mean there....You don't feel there is major diversity from one culture to another; of habits, understanding, behaviors, as well as semantics? Or are you saying something such as 'don't stereotype', when you say, 'dissociate myself from...cultural concepts' ? I certainly did not interpret fmgaigins remarks as anything prejudiced or derogatory in any way. |
| anaxagoras 3/08/2004 10:03:26 [ report this post ] | Message: Well, I think fmgaijin and I have some theoretical disagreements about language and meaning, but are mostly on the same page about the question of whether or not chess is a sport. I don't have time just now to explain more about that (I'll do so later today), but I'll throw a bone out and say that I have great misgivings about identifying the meaning of words or sentences with something like a symantic field. |
| anaxagoras 3/08/2004 10:53:24 [ report this post ] | Message: Ok, here is my take on the issue about language. The argument is meant to apply to equally to speakers of the same language as well as speakers of a different langauge. ... In order for one speaker to interpret the linguistic meaning of another speaker's utterance, he must, first of all, assume that most of the speaker's beliefs are true (in other words, agree with his own). For without that agreement there is not even a starting point for the process of translation to begin. Sentences held true by the speaker can then be correlated with publicly observable circumstances and the time at which they are held true in order to yield a translation in the interpreter's own language. Such a process would admittedly require a lot of adjustment and correction of initial error, but over time the need for these adjustments would greatly diminish. It is only on this foundation of widespread agreement that disagreement may be rendered intelligible. Were a speaker to declare that a large body of a foreign communty's beliefs were false (for instance, their beliefs about snow), then that would not be disagreement, but a failure in the translation necessary for disagreement to occur. ... The case of Inuit snow vocabulary is not so exotic or beguiling as it may first appear. Take, for instance, the vocabulary of english-speaking snow-sport enthusiasts. Individuals of this group will likely command a snow vocabulary three to five times the size of an english speaker who has only casually encoutered snow on a few occasions. Yet to assert that there would be a failure of communication between these two groups across-the-board about snow is dubious. ... We must not prejudice ourselves against descriptions of snow and its qualities for names of those qualities. The english language contains enormous resources for descriptive power, and if effort were made, we could catalogue hundreds of different qualities of snow ourselves if there were utility in the activity. Where a description of snow has the same truth conditions as an Inuit name for snow, translation can succeed. |
| victord 3/08/2004 11:06:51 [ report this post ] | Actually ... Message: .. in order to have a meaningful debate, one must first DEFINE TERMS IMO .. thus my posting from a dictionary. |
| fmgaijin 3/08/2004 13:52:20 [ report this post ] | The Problem of Translation Message: Ever wondered why computer "translators" do such a wretched job of translating one language to another? Typically, only 70-80% of the translation will be "correct," and that's when translating everyday language, not complex texts such as poetry or GK forums. You'd think that after 30+ years of trying, computational linguists would have "solved" this problem, if it were as simple as anaxagoras suggests. In fact, the cheerful prognostications of the logical positivist model of language hinted at in a's post fell awry of the complications of the "semantic fields" I mentioned earlier (see the history of linguistics from the 1970's to the present if you really want all of the dirty details; the short version follows). Simply put, so much of language is based on shared experiences, including "hidden" cultural presuppositions (see Lakoff and Johnson, "Metaphors We Live By," for example), that it cannot be converted to a SIMPLE algorithm. Think how much work has gone into creating a "expert system" (computer algorithm) to do something that is "mostly" calculable such as playing chess. Well, language is exponentially more complicated. To translate even moderately well requires complex programming. Heck, we haven't even managed to really comprehend even ONE language--no "natural language program" has come anywhere NEAR passing the "Turing Test" (which interestingly was actually posed by Rene Descartes more than 400 years ago, long before computers even existed!), much less adequately translating one language to another. Take the "snow" example again. While "snow sport" enthusiasts have many more words than the layperson for talking about snow, their vocabulary reflects their experience: that is, it focuses on what's important about snow TO THEM. The Inuit speaker (I know several) has a vocabulary for ice and snow that focuses not on how it relates to sporting or to safety but on what it's like to "be" in that snow environment--to experience life as one who lives AS AN INUIT in it. Even outsiders who spend many years living among the Inuit will still make non-native-speaker "mistakes" in the usage of these words. Of course, that doesn't mean TOTAL misunderstanding, but then "snow" isn't as complex as a culturally-based idea such as "sport" might be. To return to the original point, my American friend Jim who grew up watching ABC's "Wide World of Sports" and NFL football will never be convinced that chess is a "sport" no matter how many physical studies one produces to show how much energy a chessplayer expends in a 6 hour playing session or how much you tell him that "competition" is the essence of "sport." On the other hand, my Russian friend Aleks (who was my Olympic coach years ago) will never be persuaded that it's not, no matter how many examples of out-of-shape or parapalegic chessplayers you cite or how much you stress that the activity ITSELF must be physical to be called "sport." The words that we roughly translate as equivalent between the two languages do NOT exactly congrue. They overlap, yes, and we can learn enough about the other culture to understand that our concepts of "sport" are different, but there are no "zero-context" definitions floating around out there which will magically resolve our disagreements. |
| victord 3/08/2004 14:04:42 [ report this post ] | my last word on the subject Message: I'd say that settles it (for me), as we'll never agree on a definition of terms. Still, i'll give my opinion. Chess is not a sport IMO .. and neither is golf ;-) victord |
| thumper 3/08/2004 17:30:04 [ report this post ] | I agree with Victord Message: Chess is not a sport. A sport is an athletic competition. I have no wish to be (linguistically) all things to all people. You may continue debating language semantics and Inuit vocabulary to your heart's content. |
| anaxagoras 3/08/2004 17:47:56 [ report this post ] | Message: "In fact, the cheerful prognostications of the logical positivist model of language hinted at in a's post fell awry of the complications of the "semantic fields" I mentioned earlier" That's a very impressive and misplaced ad-hominem. I couldn't have done better myself! I had to buy Metaphors We Live By for a linguistics class I took as an undergrad. To be completely candid, the professor didn't have much interest in meeting the questions of a perplexed philosophy student who was also reading Quine and Davidson (calling these two authors "positivists" is very humorous, btw), and so I remain perplexed to this day. What is the meaning of a word? A sentence? An atterance? Surely, fmgaijin, I and anyone else would be naive to believe that there is some kind of academic consensus on these questions, as you seem to present it. |
| fmgaijin 3/08/2004 18:37:24 [ report this post ] | Anaxgoras: ad hominem against whom??? Message: Since one of my Ph.D. fields was Philosophy of Language, I too have read Quine, Davidson, etc. My reference to the "logical positivist" model of language was not to them but to the attempt in the realms of semantics and computational linguistics to produce a "zero-context" language which could be precisely translated from one mode to another. While these models took up large chunks of my textbooks on semantics back in the 1970's and 80's, they do not even appear as a whisper in any of the general linguistics or semantics texts I review today. Why? Because nobody could make them work. My is not an ad hominem attack on anybody because nobody I know holds THAT position any longer. Quite simply, modern philosphers of language are NOT logical positivists. As I understand the work of Quine and Davidson, they would agree with me that meaning is "highly indeterminate" (Quine's phrase). Meaning is NOT something which we "discover" or "uncover" through empirical methods and which we then check against "the facts." They might even agree with the phenomenologists <gasp!> that meaning is in part constituted through the practices of interpretation and translation to which we adhere. Quine's most famous works in fact seem to argue just that. While we might be able to salvage "meaning" through other means, Quine pretty much killed the logical positivist model of language single-handedly in his essays "Truth by Convention," "Two Dogmas of Empiricism," and "Carnap and Logical Truth." Thus, the fact that we can talk about "meaning" and "translate" the meanings of another language does not mean that we have "found meaning" or can generate a Platonic Ideal of concepts such as "sport" and then definitively assign chess to it or not. Some discourse translates readily and clearly; other discourse does not. In this PARTICULAR case, I believe that the semantic features associated with this concept do not congrue in any universal or semi-universal way across contemporary languages and cultures, and hence we cannot at this time answer the question. |
| fmgaijin 3/08/2004 18:45:07 [ report this post ] | Oh--Was It YOU? Message: An afterthought--perhaps you meant that I was engaging in an ad hominem attack on YOU? If so, I apologize. I certainly did not intend it; instead, I thought that your discussion of the fact that we have thousands of descriptors to talk about "snow" and therefore should be able to come to a common understanding about it suggested that meaning is just a "bundle" of descriptors ("semantic features" to the linguist) and hence we just have to ID the right ones to make communications possible. To me, that sounds like a logical positivist model, not one that Quine would advocate. Did I misread you? |
| anaxagoras 3/08/2004 19:09:48 [ report this post ] | Message: Perhaps I should say it was a variant of an ad-hominem? "Dismisal through labeling" could be a candidate description. Anyway, your tactic was to suggest that my position would be one held by a logical positivist, so that you could then surreptitiously move on to trumpet about the conclusions of your intellectual sympathizers. I have nothing more to say except that you don't need to review the canonical works and ideas of western philosophy for me. |
| victord 3/08/2004 20:10:25 [ report this post ] | Message: eeeeeeeeeeEEErrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr ... maybe it IS a sport!?! |
| anaxagoras 3/08/2004 21:26:16 [ report this post ] | Message: That last post of mine was before your last message appeared. Yes, I did feel misread. Thanx for the re-read. But it's time for me to get some sleep now. I can explain more about my philosophical commitments later. |
| janpot 3/08/2004 22:51:40 [ report this post ] | Chess is not only a sport... Message: Does anyone remember the words of prof. dr. Max Euwe, World Champion 1935-1937: "Chess is three things: sport, science and art". |
| sly_lonewolf 3/09/2004 00:08:47 [ report this post ] | janpot.... Message: ..those are well spoken words from a great champion. Thanks...hopefully now we all can continue with our chess games! :) |
| janpot 3/09/2004 07:08:28 [ report this post ] | Who's the greatest player ever? Message: Another endless discussion. We had it at ChessWorld and it was kind of interesting to read so many members there putting there preferences forward. Anyone here interested? Jan Pot Antwerp Belgium |
| ccmcacollister 3/09/2004 08:03:08 [ report this post ] | JAN ... I'm Game ! Message: {...or am I "sport" ??!} But anyway, that Sounds sufficiently insurmountable for concensus, if not totally pointless enough, to suit me! But how will you define "Greatest" to be ? [8-) I've heard that Reshevsky may have been the Greatest, if we judge by calories expended for nervous physical activity during the course of a Game/ Tournament / Career. Say though, while you're at it; looks like we'll be needing a 3rd: "Is Chess Sport?" thread too real soon now, so we can get this thing worked-out ! .......[8-O |
| janpot 3/09/2004 09:04:50 [ report this post ] | Reshevsky not the greatest Message: To be honest: who are we, how capable are we to judge on 'who's been the greatest'? Of course we can easily quote a few names (random order!): Emmanuel Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, Botvinnik, Tal, Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov... How should we compare players from so very different eras? My answer is simple: I can't. However, I want to emphasise that no-one ever before achieved what Kasparov has done and is still doing: being the No 1 of the world ranking for such an uninterrupted lapse of time. Almost 20 years now. Some said at ChessWorld that Lasker has done better: he was WCh for 27 years. True, but the title was his and he defended it against the opponent who put the highest $-bid on the table and he didn't defend it for years sometimes. There's no comparison possible. Kindest regards Jan Pot Antwerp Belgium |
| ddrfreak101 3/10/2004 10:01:15 [ report this post ] | if chess is not a sport Message: If chess is not a sport why is golf considered a sport? Golf involves hitting a ball, and then ridding a golf cart it. They do not even walk. Is pool a sport? It involves a much physical activity as chess. |
| ccmcacollister 3/20/2004 23:50:00 [ report this post ] | So THE QUESTION has meaning Message: after all. Because I read just the other day that Chess cannot be in the the Olympics, unless it IS/Does-become considered "a sport". With yet additional qualifications to become an "Olympic Sport" naturally. |
| coyotefan 3/21/2004 00:01:21 [ report this post ] | Please Message: END THIS THREAD!! |
| Maximum number of reply messages has been reached | |
