Chess Scotland Noticeboard

Stuart Blyth · King Joined: 11 Sep 2008 Posts: 209

And everyone is quite entitled not to address the points raised Wink

And everyone is quite entitled to repeat the same thing over and over again, even though it's not relevant to the actual point being raised. Wink

Just like everyone will work out the reasons why someone would want to do this......... Wink

admin · Site Admin Joined: 09 Jan 2007 Posts: 1386

Stuart,

If the IOC decide to bring Chess (likely to be short form) into the Olympics (which is on the cards very soon) then all countries are going to have to ratify it as a sport

Mike Scott · King Joined: 01 Feb 2007 Posts: 676 Location: Edinburgh

Stuart said

Stuart Blyth · King Joined: 11 Sep 2008 Posts: 209

Mike
in an earlier post I said:

"Similarly, nobody is arguing against the view that a healthy body is a good thing and may bring benefits. However, this again applies to all, repeat all, mental activities - studying, running a business, writing a novel, playing scrabble. It's not a critical factor in playing chess."

I thought when I said this that I was addressing earlier posts and responding to the issues you mention.

My impression was that the people arguing in favour of considering chess a sport were claiming that physical fitness was a significant factor in chess.

AWIC · King Joined: 10 Feb 2007 Posts: 221

Craig Pritchett · Queen Joined: 19 Mar 2007 Posts: 114

OK. I won't give another of my views. But here's the world champion in an interview with Business Outlook just after he won the world championship match against Kramnik in 2008: "I'm aware that chess is becoming very young ... but ... it seems to me that if you are motivated and you train physically, you are able to cope".

I extract this and discuss it on p159 in my chapter on Anand, in Heroes of Classical Chess, Everyman Chess 2010. The entire, very lengthy interview, which is well worth reading can be found in the ChessBase archives. Happy Christmas!

Jim Stevenson · Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2010 12:26 pm Post subject:

Without taking sides in this debate, Stuart asks whether there are any examples of physical fitness/ stamina having an effect on the results of events.

Just of the top of my head, the career or Karpov was often severely blighted by a lack of staying power in major matches, particularly those lasting several months. Towards the end of major events he would lose an alarming amount of weight, suffer from serious medical complaints (sleeplessness, low blood pressure etc), and only the full might of soviet medical hocuspokus kept him at the board with a pulse.

He barely survived matches with Korchnoi in 1974 and 1978, and finally collapsed at the end of the first match with Kasparov in 1985.

Angus implies that other games/ mind sports, somehow lack the depth and subtlety of chess. This is perhaps based on their 'popular TV' image, rather than the long experience of actual participants. Eg, any poker player will cheerfully tell you that , say the recently concluded Sky Poker Million, is to real poker what the X Factor is to music, or an internet bullet game between Nakamura and Grischuk is to say the Tal- Botvinnik match of 1960.

Have a look at, eg The Mathematics of Poker by Chen & Ankenman, or any of David Sklansky's better works, then come back and convince me if you really think it's all a trivial matter of luck.

Stuart Blyth · King Joined: 11 Sep 2008 Posts: 209

Nobody on the pro-‘chess is a sport’ camp seem willing to answer the question of whether they consider draughts, video-gaming, poker, scrabble and bridge to be sports.

Karpov’s health. Do you not think that this is an example of poor health and lack of stamina? Poor health and a lack of stamina would have an adverse effect on any demanding activity – be it physical/athletic or mental/intellectual. I don’t think this ‘proves’ that chess is a sport - unless you are arguing that all demanding activities (be they mental or physical) should be classed as a sport, and I’m making the assumption you don’t.

Look at it another way. Think of how people train for competitive activities.
All activities that I (and I suspect most people) would class as sports involve training of a physical nature – running, weight lifting, shooting, aiming, and so on. This is not the case with chess. There is no essential element of training for chess that is physical/athletic. If this is not the case, then please give me some hard evidence.

If a footballer loses a leg his ability to play will be severely reduced; if a swimmer loses an arm her ability to swim will be adversely affected; if an archer loses an eye, chances are he will not be able to aim so well; if a darts player loses her throwing hand she will not be so strong a player. I can think of no physical loss of this nature that would have a similar effect on a chess player. Loss of vision could well have an affect, but there are many blind players who can compete at a very high level – not to mention those who can play blindfolded.

Thousands of games of chess are played daily on computers between people who are living in different parts of the world. Please tell me of any other ‘sport’ where such a situation exists. How can a game that can be played, competitively, in this way be a sport? Or is it that I haven’t heard of postal football?

By all means argue that a competitive activity that depends on mental ability should be a sport - that at least would be a position to take. However, please don’t resort to claiming physical/athletic aspects to the game of chess that common sense (along with a lack of evidence) shows to be untrue! Of course, if you took that position then you would have to debate the issue of whether other competitive intellectual/mental games/activities were sports…………………………..see above!

Angus McDonald · King Joined: 08 Apr 2009 Posts: 162

Jim,

I'm not going to read the books. I'm not a great fan of 'Poker' and do consider that luck plays a significant part in the outcome of 'Poker' matches. I guess that varies depending on the variation of 'Poker' you are playing.

What I would ask you to do is reflect on these questions.
Why isn't there a grading list for 'Poker' players and if there was would there clearly be the best players in the world at the top or would it be those that were good at Poker and having a lucky streak at the top?

regards,
Angus

Angus McDonald · King Joined: 08 Apr 2009 Posts: 162

Stuart,

I'll answer the question.

I consider Draughts could be a sport because there is no luck involved. It is a game of skill. I don't consider Draughts is as skillful as Chess.

The rest I don't consider sports because they depend on the cards or letters you get which is luck.

Chess deserves to be an Olympic Sport because you can have fair contests between individuals or teams without luck playing a part.

If you had Scrabble in the Olympics you wouldn't have the best scrabble player winning you'd have the person who got the best letters winning.

Stuart Blyth · King Joined: 11 Sep 2008 Posts: 209

Something else just came into my mind

Chess has opening theory that can reach to, I don't know, twenty or thirty moves. On top of this, even 'middle-graders' like me will know some theory to move ten or so.

Do these facts also not go against the notion of chess as a sport?

HughBrechin · Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2010 2:29 pm Post subject:

There's no such thing as a contest where luck doesn't play a part.

There are poker money lists: of course there's more variance involved in who's at the top, (but there's more variance in the vast majority of sports than in chess as well), but in general it's the guys who are viewed as the best players in the world who take most of the top spots year after year.

One point that I've never been wholly convinced by answers to is that in chess, or poker, or scrabble, or Connect 4, if you want to play a move / make a bet / whatever, you do it. The only two limitations to that are what you're able to think of and what the rules allow. In snooker and darts - never mind football or rugby - the conception doesn't necessarily imply the execution, and that's always struck me as a fairly important distinction.

Jim Stevenson · Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2010 2:34 pm Post subject:

Angus,

There is indeed variance in poker, most evidently in the short term. Whether you consider that to be the same as luck is a matter of individual interpretation. To some extent I would agree with you, though for quite different reasons, in that I would consider the result of one, or even several tournaments, to be both fairly arbitrary and statistically meaningless.

But then again I don't consider poker tournaments to be any more a test of poker skill than comparing skill at blitz to classical time limit chess. The funny thing is, of course, that most people want to make chess commercially viable by speeding it up, and dumbing it down for mass consumption, rather than selling it for the great complex game it truly is. But that's for another thread.

In a nutshell, the basic reason why the later stages of tournaments involve 'luck' ( they are not called a crap shoot by our American friends for nothing) is the absurdly low ratio of stack sizes to blinds. This usually reduces the result to the value of the cards alone, or alternatively one extravagant bluff. As everyone knows the actual cards you hold are one of the least important aspects of the game.

Compare this to the so called 'side' or 'cash' game , where the blinds remain constant, and very low compared to stack sizes. Now the play unfolds not only over many 'streets' per hand but indeed over many hours of a session, which requires patience, stamina, observation, technical knowledge, good timing, alertness, boldness, calculating ability and a whole range of other skills which are common to many games, sports and indeed everyday endeavours.

You ask about grading lists for poker players. Rather a humourous idea: personally I think their egos are big enough, without a shiny four digit number hanging round their necks. The grading list is the bulge in your wallet, and given the enthusiasm of HMRC, the IRS, et al. this is another fine reason to avoid official tournament play.

Mike Scott · King Joined: 01 Feb 2007 Posts: 676 Location: Edinburgh

Angus,

Angus McDonald · King Joined: 08 Apr 2009 Posts: 162

Hugh,

Undoubtedly there are generalisations in any such debate so in 'general'
I'd say that Chess is a game of skill and that luck is not a major factor.
In general the best players will rise to the top of the grading lists in Chess.