Is Chess A Sport?

„B-b-b-but chess is not a sport!“

Every chess player has heard these words. The debate whether our ancient game should count as a sport is probably as ancient as… our ancient game. The opponents of the idea claim chess is primarily a mind game which contains elements of art and sport ¹. On the other hand, its supporters are ready to provide arguments why chess should stand shoulder to shoulder with, say, football, basketball or tuna tossing. ²

As the more perceptive of you probably realized after reading the title, the author of these lines belongs in the first group. Even though I am a chess player myself, ³ I believe chess should not be considered a sport. In the course of this article, I will try to do my best to put forward compelling arguments and justify my attitude.

Or at least to piss some of you off in the process 🙂 !

What constitutes a sport?

Before we start talking about chess, we need to define what constitutes a sport in the first place.

The answer is not straightforward. It is highly subjective and a matter of opinion. The word „sport“ has a different meaning for different people. A clear-cut definition that will appeal to everybody simply does not exist.

However, as George Orwell once said: “All definitions are equal, but some definitions are more equal than the others!” ⁴ Some definitions of sport make a lot of sense. Others are just plain bad. To me, the one offered by Oxford Dictionary seems most elegant and comprehensive. According to it, sport is:

“An activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment.”

In a way, this definition is closest to our intuitive notion that sport is a physical competition. However, it is also more refined, because it breaks the physical aspect into two components.

The first one is the “exertion”. It refers to actual athletic exertion.

If you can enhance your performance by improving your physical condition, it is a sport. In football or basketball, you get better when you get into shape. In cooking or typing on a computer – not so much. The difference is that the first two require a display of some physical abilities, like strength, endurance, stamina or flexibility.

In other words – in order for an activity to qualify as a sport, it needs to be physically demanding. Above minimal threshold.

The second component of the physical aspect is “skill”. It refers to individual elements which can be enhanced to improve performance. It is important to stress they revolve around the execution of physical motions. Every sport has a specific and unique amount of these elements (a skillset) which we usually regard as “technique”. Improving your technique is just as important as improving your shape.

What is the difference between “exertion” and “skill”? It is easiest to make a distinction if you think in terms of ability and technique, as mentioned above. For example, in football, strength will help you to shoot the ball harder. Skill will help you to shoot it more precisely from different positions of the court. ⁵

Of course, in some sports (like, say, wrestling) exertion is more pronounced than in others (like, say, table tennis). The same goes for skill. But all sports in the world contain some combination of the two. ⁶

And that is precisely where chess is lacking.

Why chess is not a sport?

A common argument why chess is not a sport is that it is not a physical activity. It is often met with a counterargument that greatest players of all time and Robert Fischer all devoted particular attention to their physical condition.

To an extent, both sides were right and wrong. Yes, all chess players know how tiring and gruesome a long game can be. It is not coincidental that the greatest players of all time like Kasparov and Magnus, and also Robert Fischer, all played sports regularly. That Sergey Karjakin attributed his loss in the rapid tiebreak of the 2016 match precisely to the lack of shape.

However, what both sides usually overlook is that this is only valid when it comes to physical exertion. Even though chess is on the lower end of the scale, exertion does exist. But if we are talking about the other component, then the simplistic “you are just sitting at the board” argument has some merit.

In chess, the only real motion is the movement of the pieces. However, HOW you do it has very little impact on the outcome of the game. You don’t train piece movement to get better. ⁷ Chess simply doesn’t require any physical skill.

I am not the only know who thinks like that. One article on Psychology Today titled What Makes Sport a Sport states something similar:

Chess, on the other hand, is probably not a sport because, although it involves some physical activity, this physical activity is not particularly skilled, and, in any case, is not the primary purpose of chess. It is perfectly possible to get someone to move our chess pieces for us and still be counted as playing chess: in that much, the physical activity associated with playing chess is not central or even secondary but merely incidental.

Likewise, one guy on chesscom wrote that:

I think darts, pool and bowling are all sports because they are all to a large degree about performing physical motions well in a competitive setting. The only physical motion one does in chess is the movement of the pieces. No points in chess for excellent piece movement.

For me, therefore, there is no doubt. Absence of any physical skill is sufficient to say that chess is not a sport.

Why do people say chess is a sport?

Now, I know many of you who beg to differ will come up with arguments about why chess should be a sport. In this part of the article, I would like to address the most common ones and explain why I don’t find them particularly convincing. As we are going to see, most of them mention factors that are desirable and important, but not sufficient to define a sport.

• Chess is physically exhausting and it is important to be in good shape

The favorite counter-argument. Chess players are very fond of explaining that chess is physically exhausting. That top chess players are all in good shape.

However, they fail to distinguish that they are talking solely about physical exertion. Whereas they completely overlook the physical skill component.

This article on ichess.net is a perfect example of this fallacy. The author even quotes the definition of sport provided by the Oxford Dictionary. And then continues to talk about exertion exclusively.

• Chess has rules and etiquette

Another argument from the afore-mentioned ichess.net article. Yes, it is desirable that a sport has organized and recognized rules. But, even they admit it is not its defining mark.

• Chess requires skill

Yes, mental skill. Not a physical one.

• Chess is well-established

An argument from this article. But I don’t see how it is relevant. Prostitution is also well-established, but you wouldn’t call it a sport just because of that, would you? ⁸

I agree that sociological factors – rules and organizations – are important. But they are not sufficient in itself to determine whether something is a sport or not.

• Chess is a global game

Another argument from the same article. And another unconvincing one. Being global has nothing to do with being a sport.

• Chess players have received National Accolades

According to the same article, Magnus Carlsen, Veselin Topalov and Vishy Anand have always received the Sportsman of the year award in their countries.

I think it had more to do with them being famous and successful rather than with chess being a sport.

Besides, the involvement of institutions always has something to do with interests and lobbies than with the actual state of affairs.

Which leads me to the next point.

Why do chess institutions want to make chess a sport?

There is one argument I haven’t yet addressed. International Olympic Committee recognized chess as an international sport (not as an Olympic sport. But it IS the first step toward that). Also, it has been recognized as a sport in 24 countries in Europe.

There are compelling facts. If chess is good enough for IOC, for the majority of Europe, why is it not good enough for me?

In order to answer that, we need to understand the motivation behind this decision. If you take a look at the list of internationally recognized sports, you will notice only one board game – chess. And only one card game – bridge. Why weren’t any other board games, like checkers, backgammon, go or shogi, or any other card games like poker included?

Well, the main reason is that chess and bridge have bigger and better-organized institutions (federations). Who are able to vouch for the inclusion of chess and bridge on the list of sports. Just recently, FIDE management decided to put forward a proposition to include chess in the 2024 Olympic Games in Paris. ⁹ As usual when things become institutionalized, certain people are pushing their own agenda. It is all political.

But why do they do it? Money, of course. It is much easier to attract sponsors, to gather some capital if you are a sport. Or even better, an Olympic one. Put simply, if chess were widely acknowledged as (Olympic) sport, funding would become much more accessible.

It wouldn’t happen only on the grand scale. All national chess federations would benefit. Just the other day, I talked with a fellow Grandmaster. He told me that the Croatian Olympic Federation restricts the numbers of paid trainers of the Croatian Chess Federation, precisely because of everything written above.

Another comment on chess.com summed it up nicely:

The inclusion of mind sports within sport definitions has not been universally accepted, leading to legal challenges from governing bodies in regards to being denied funding available to sports

Now, don’t get me wrong. I am not opposing the idea. If the inclusion of chess into the 2024 Olympiad would benefit all chess players, ¹⁰ I am all up for it.

But let’s not pretend institutions are doing it out of altruism or because they firmly believe chess deserves to be a sport.

Why do chess players want to make chess a sport?

So much about institutions. But what about people? Why do individuals think chess should be considered a sport?

First of all, most chess players, in general, do so, while most non-chess players don’t. We should rephrase the question and ask ourselves ‘Why chess players think chess should be considered as a sport?’. In order to answer it, allow me to digress and join me in a walk down my memory lane.

Back in the days when I was still studying, ¹¹ regional competition between engineering students in sport and knowledge (the popular „Elektrijada“) was organized every year. Among other things, I participated as a member of the team in chess competitions.

These events gave me an unique insight into how chess fares compared to other sports. It was degraded on all levels. The organization was always lacking. There weren’t any spectators as nobody was particularly interested. Even though we had very good results and won gold medals, we never got the same acknowledgment as, say, football or basketball team.

In these events, I always felt like an outsider. I yearned for external validation and acceptance. And the feeling that nobody gives a fuck ¹² helped me develop a serious inferiority complex. I deeply wanted to be on equal footing as other athletes in sports competitions.

I think many chess players go through something similar. Non-chess players often underestimate, degrade and mock our game. ¹³ And chess is a very demanding and lonely occupation. It is natural to yearn for some recognition.

That is why many chess players support the idea of chess being a sport. The reasons are personal and subjective. Behind all combative: „But chess is physically tiring“ and „Chess is a sport“ comments is the craving for acceptance and appreciation.

As yet another chess.com member put it:

I disagree with the claim that chess is a sport. I remember back in Ukraine people would keep referring to it as “sport” and usually it was just the people who spent too much time playing chess in their leisure time. They wanted to give weight and purpose to their hobby.

Is chess a sport – does it matter?

To conclude, even though the definition of sport is open to interpretation, I believe the principled answer to the question „Is chess a sport?“ is no. Even chess.com agrees with this and states it is LIKE a sport.

But in all sincerity, does it really matter in the end? No matter whether chess is a sport, art or a game, one thing is certain.

It has an ability to make people happy.

1. At best
2. Don’t we live in a beautiful, weird world?
3. In the broadest sense of the word
4. Or something like that…
5. Some players, like Ivica Olić, do better in the “exertion” category, while others, like Ronaldinho, are fantastic in the “skill” domain. But every professional player is above average in both
6. The whole skill-exertion division is not my own concept. I “borrowed” it from a Bleacher Report article titled “Settling the Debates: Is It A Sport Or Is It Not A Sport?. You can also find the author’s opinion on some other sports.
7. If we disregard mad blitz games and time troubles
8. When I think of it, perhaps it is better you didn’t answer that question
9. Even though chess has its own Olympiad
10. And bloggers *wink wink*
11. Or more precisely, wasting my time in college
12. And yes, that included the females
13. If I had a penny for every „Are you going to a chess training“ joke I heard in my life