Kneverknight as you are my namesake ill be gentle with you. When Garry Kasparov lost to deep blue that was the first time the Worldchampion of chess had lost to a computer. You have to know a couple of things though he was not the best suited to play that match and thre were 3 or 4 other players in the top ten that would have beaten deep blue. Of course the men in black at IBM did not want a rematch as their computer sales went off the richter scale. We programme computers and will always be able to beat them. If computers get more emotional in the future their make mistakes just as we do. They make mistakes now The white knight has spoken.....
Originally posted by The whiteKnightA sport is defined as an activity involving physical exertion and skill that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often undertaken competitively.
Greyeyesfor sorrow your only problem is your getting emotional. if you try to thinkusing both sides of your brain when your emotional you wont think correctly.Unless chess moves into the higher echelons it will always stay in the gh ...[text shortened]... .and working for the powersof light...............................
I feel chess fails on the physical exertion point.
Chess isn't a game either as it lacks an element of luck.
Greyeyes is right. Chess is an art or maybe a language.
Personally I wouldn't want chess associated with the Olympics. If it were an olympic sport it would be a tiny part of a much larger one. However by having it's own seperate Olympiad, held twice as often, Chess holds centre stage for a good deal of time. Last time a bid was made to put chess in the olympics the drug issue came up. From that came the brief theoretical ban on caffeine.
Originally posted by The whiteKnightWhile I agree with most of what you say, one point needs to be made - the paralympics is for those persons not able to compete in the "normal" olympics, due to a disability that affects their ability to compete in their chosen "sport".
Greyeyesfor sorrow your only problem is your getting emotional. if you try to thinkusing both sides of your brain when your emotional you wont think correctly.Unless chess moves into the higher echelons it will always stay in the ghetto. We need the Olympics. It is the only sport that could be played for the first time mixing chess athletes from the ...[text shortened]... te knight is always right.....and working for the powersof light...............................
A deaf person (and I avoid the PC terms like hearing-imparied for the benefit of those who speak english as a 3rd or even 4th language), can compete in a marathon, but would be at a disadvantage in ball room dancing.
Having said all that, if chess became an olympic sport, the paralympics would also have chess, but for the mentally disabled. Or not?
Originally posted by XanthosNZ"sport is defined as an activity involving physical exertion"
A sport is defined as an activity involving physical exertion and skill that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often undertaken competitively.
I feel chess fails on the physical exertion point.
Chess isn't a game either as it lacks an element of luck.
Greyeyes is right. Chess is an art or maybe a language.
Personally I wouldn't want chess ...[text shortened]... ss in the olympics the drug issue came up. From that came the brief theoretical ban on caffeine.
this is true but
If you think chess fails on the physical exertion point you must have never played a full 2hour match because I can tell you that you will be exhausted.
Also chess does not lack the element of luck. Its hard to explain but basicly luck start at the end of analysing a move since you don't know what will happen next and there could just be a winning combination there for your opponent.
Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboard
"sport is defined as an activity involving physical exertion"
this is true but
If you think chess fails on the physical exertion point you must have never played a full 2hour match because I can tell you that you will be exhausted.
Really? I assume you mean 6 hour rather than 2 hour, but I don't find this is any more exhausting than working for 6 hours. Less, actually, as I'm usually more interested in the chess game.
Also chess does not lack the element of luck. Its hard to explain but basicly luck start at the end of analysing a move since you don't know what will happen next and there could just be a winning combination there for your opponent.
But if you'd looked a few moves further you may have seen it. That's not luck, it's a failure of analysis on your part.
Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboardOh it's plenty tiring, I certainly feel it after two close fought FIDE time control games in a day. But that's mental not physical.
"sport is defined as an activity involving physical exertion"
this is true but
If you think chess fails on the physical exertion point you must have never played a full 2hour match because I can tell you that you will be ex ...[text shortened]... there could just be a winning combination there for your opponent.
That's not luck. That's a failure on your part in analysis.
Edit: I swear I didn't read Osse's post before replying but somehow we both used exactly the same phrasing at the end there.
"That's not luck. That's a failure on your part in analysis."
Not really since everyone including kasparov and deep blue stop analysing at a certian point. Of course theoreticaly speaking you could analyse the game from the opening to the endgame where you mate your opponent like a big mate in 60 combintion but this is obviously not possible.
So lets say you anasyse ahead 10 moves and see that you can win a pawn there and it does not look like he can win it back or get any dangerous attack so you make the moves and win a pawn after 10 moves. Now you think ahead another 10 moves and see there is an unstopable mate in 5 for your opponent... bad luck.
If this is failure on your part of the analysis then we all do this almost every move we make. (it does not matter if the move is losing or winning)
Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboardI'm not seeing the luck aspect. Is there a die roll? Or a hand of randomly drawn cards? Or an erratically bouncing ball? There is nothing neither you or your opponent has no control over in chess. How can luck then decide a game?
"That's not luck. That's a failure on your part in analysis."
Not really since everyone including kasparov and deep blue stop analysing at a certian point. Of course theoreticaly speaking you could analyse the game from t ...[text shortened]... e we make. (it does not matter if the move is losing or winning)
Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboardThis really is not valid, simply because tactics don't work like that. In many positions no analysis at all is needed (i.e. the only feature of the position is an open file, this is the only move that allows me to control the open file, therefore I must play this). In complex positions I attempt to analyse positions to quiesence - that is, a point at which tactics have stopped and I can make a judgement about positional factors. I think other players work the same way. If a position looks dangerous, you make a judgement about whether to go for it based on what your alternatives are and what type of player you are. There's no luck involved here, unless you call trusting intuition 'luck'.
"That's not luck. That's a failure on your part in analysis."
Not really since everyone including kasparov and deep blue stop analysing at a certian point. Of course theoreticaly speaking you could analyse the game from the opening to the endgame where you mate your opponent like a big mate in 60 combintion but this is obviously not possib ...[text shortened]... e all do this almost every move we make. (it does not matter if the move is losing or winning)
Originally posted by Osseyes I think trusting on intuition involves a certian amount of luck. As history has shown tal's intuitive sacrifices where not always correct. (btw of course you do not have to sac in order it get into a lost possition)
This really is not valid, simply because tactics don't work like that. In many positions no analysis at all is needed (i.e. the only feature of the position is an open file, this is the only move that allows me to control the open file, therefore I must play this). In complex positions I attempt to analyse positions to quiesence - that is, a point at which tac ...[text shortened]... of player you are. There's no luck involved here, unless you call trusting intuition 'luck'.
Or do you think there something as a intuitive mistake?😛
What is art ,what is language ,what is luck, what is intuition.?? I think we are starting to see a pattern here that people dont know anything.What definrs a sport.It is not physical this is just conceptial to the modern world and modern times. I have never seen an apple pip put into the ground and it turned out to be an orange tree. There are natural laws and natural truths and chess is a sport you just have to understand the word sport. Drug testing etc etc are modern conceptions there have always been substances in the foods that we eat, that enhance our performance that is not an argument. Are you going to take somebodys medal away because there diet wasn't good enough. If your brain tells you you cant run you wont. the brain is ther chancellor of the whole body . Is evrybody missing the point what greater sport is there apart from chess. The white knight has spoken........
one more thing most of you seem to be American. I think there might be a kiwi and someone from the UK that has replied. The problem with Americans is you do not think globaly. The sun does not revolve around the U.S.A the earth revolves around the sun. You must find the absolute truth in ideas not the false truth in your way of thinking. What is sport that has still not been debated. You anoraks are talking about the subtilties of chess not sport. Grow up.................