- Feb 7, 2011
- 8,802
- 3,383
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
Chess is classified as a sport, look it up. And really, if Chess is a sport than pretty much anything competitive can be a sport.TypeSD said:
Can "e-sports" = real sports?
- Thread starter DustyLion
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Yes, but just barely; it's less athletic than football or rugby, but it's still athletic enough to qualify.Spencer Petersen said:
*sigh* look, all sports are games, but not all games are sports. The defining characteristic is the athleticism, not the competition. It's why both Golf and Football are sports, but Starcraft and chess are not.Jumplion said:
I actually just looked it up; chess is an Olympic sport as the result of a campaign by some chess league to get the money and recognition that comes from being featured in the olympics: <link=http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1827716,00.html>source. It had nothing to do with the actual nature of the game, and everything to do with publicity. Operative quote:Dirty Hipsters said:
Even under Olympic rules, it's not technically a sport, but a "mind sport," a term that, much like "e-sport" separates chess from real sports.Time Magazine said:
Edit: and re-reading the quote, chess and bridge aren't sports; their governing bodies are members of an organization of governing bodies of different sports, but the actual games have not been recognized as sports.
None of the analogies you stated earlier gave the hint that you were talking about that. Don't "*sigh*" at me when I clearly didn't understand what you were talking about in the first place and clarification was needed. Something about condemning paintings for not being music or something that really had nothing to do with what you just said.Owyn_Merrilin said:
Regardless, I don't think we will agree on this any time soon. I don't see a reason why "sport" must be restricted to athletic games as it can be just as strategic, taxing, and demanding to pull of a counter in a fighting game [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeM0rH_4ung&feature=player_embedded]. Any game can be taken and evolved into a competitive sport. Maybe a competitive game of freeze tag wouldn't be taken seriously, but it'd be a sport all the same.
I dont know. On one side there's nto a lot of the physical endurance a sport like Hockey, or Soccer, or Football (american) bring (you can say differently, but its my opinion). On the other hand, it brings a different kind of endurance and does require skill.
I tihnk it will be the definition the person uses to describe a sport, and whether that is the traditional way people think of sports (high physical activity) or the new way (where if it takes skill and training, its a sport).
... but then again, the new way opens the door for things like gambling to be a sport (I know, there's world poker tournaments and such, but I'm talking slots and craps type gambling) and other actions people would see has addictions, and not sports.
So in the long run, I'd say no. Just cause I dont see things like Chess as sports, cause its all mental, just like videogames are. I beleive a sport is a competition that uses both body and mind and pushes both to the limit.
EDIT:
Thats why a good portion of people (that are avid golfers and I talk to at least) think Tiger Woods has lost it. he just cant win the mental war, and its screwing over his stance.
I tihnk it will be the definition the person uses to describe a sport, and whether that is the traditional way people think of sports (high physical activity) or the new way (where if it takes skill and training, its a sport).
... but then again, the new way opens the door for things like gambling to be a sport (I know, there's world poker tournaments and such, but I'm talking slots and craps type gambling) and other actions people would see has addictions, and not sports.
So in the long run, I'd say no. Just cause I dont see things like Chess as sports, cause its all mental, just like videogames are. I beleive a sport is a competition that uses both body and mind and pushes both to the limit.
EDIT:
To be fair, if you play golf on a very competitive level, the physicality isnt in the force you exert, but more in the position of the body and being able to stop the force you generate in yourself and contain. Even being the slightest bit off can be the difference between a birdie and a bogie. Its a mental war in the mind to focus on golf, and the physicality to have that precision in your body's positioning.Owyn_Merrilin said:
Thats why a good portion of people (that are avid golfers and I talk to at least) think Tiger Woods has lost it. he just cant win the mental war, and its screwing over his stance.
Dude, what are you talking about? here's my first post from this thread:Jumplion said:
There were only five posts in the thread when you made your first post, there's no excuse for not having read the post where I explained that. As for why a sport requires athleticism: it's a part of the definition of the word, end of story. You may as well ask why blue is the word we use for the color of the sky.Owyn_Merrilin said:
And I wasn't talking about post? We slipped off on a tangent towards the middle and went full circle. You said "That's like saying it's disrespectful to painting to not recognize it as music. They're both art, but they're in different categories -- categories that aren't of degree, but kind." and I was like "dude, you're right, they're catagories of the same thing just like this sport and that sport," and then we just sort of went back to the first thing.Owyn_Merrilin said:
And this is where we will have to agree to disagree. Not much we can say really at this point, so, yeah, good night and thanks for the discussion and whatnot.
You seem to forget that none of the games that are now considered sports were invented to be sports. They were all invented to be fun and competitive. Sure, if you practice enough you can get good at anything, but to be great at something to the level that OGS_MC plays Starcraft II takes the same one of a kind talent it takes to be a pro footballer. I've had this argument with my brother a lot, and it always comes down to the same things.
1. There is physical exertion in esports. Look at the players after a long close match and they will be sweating and out of breath. Anyone whose played a close game online knows it's exhausting, you don't have to be a pro for that.
2. They are super competitive. Maybe not physically, but I think most pros will tell you the physical aspect is far less important that outsmarting or outplaying your opponent. Even then, there are lots of GSL games I've seen where a build is specifically built for one player to screw with his head because the other guy knows how he thinks. That kind of play is crucial in any sport.
3. As for reinventing the sport/evolution goes, they made the same arguments when the first professional sports teams started to rise up over a century ago. Everyone thought it would go nowhere because it couldn't capture the spectators, it was too abstract or complex for a layperson to get into. Look at it now, professional athletes pull in salaries in the millions and championship events are always on top of the viewership ratings.
Esports are just as legit as any "ball sport", they're just newer and therefore less accepted. In 50 years, we'll all be crowded in the bars watching the MLG finals just like we watch our football games now.
1. There is physical exertion in esports. Look at the players after a long close match and they will be sweating and out of breath. Anyone whose played a close game online knows it's exhausting, you don't have to be a pro for that.
2. They are super competitive. Maybe not physically, but I think most pros will tell you the physical aspect is far less important that outsmarting or outplaying your opponent. Even then, there are lots of GSL games I've seen where a build is specifically built for one player to screw with his head because the other guy knows how he thinks. That kind of play is crucial in any sport.
3. As for reinventing the sport/evolution goes, they made the same arguments when the first professional sports teams started to rise up over a century ago. Everyone thought it would go nowhere because it couldn't capture the spectators, it was too abstract or complex for a layperson to get into. Look at it now, professional athletes pull in salaries in the millions and championship events are always on top of the viewership ratings.
Esports are just as legit as any "ball sport", they're just newer and therefore less accepted. In 50 years, we'll all be crowded in the bars watching the MLG finals just like we watch our football games now.
Personally, I don't consider video games or chess sports, but I'm very bit into both. But...
People don't USUALLY have the level of expertise in video games that professionals have in sports, with something like Starcraft being an exception, and I'm sure there's a few games that people have gotten that good at. But the reason isn't the amount of skill required, it's popularity and demand. Is Halo popular? Absolutely! Are people willing to spend a lot of money watching it on t.v. and going to competitions. No, not really. At least, not as many people as the number that go to sporting events. Because of this lack of demand, people aren't able to get tons of money doing it, get scholarships, go to special training for it, train for as many hours as they want because it's their job, etc.
I think it's useful not to consider them a sport. I don't think it grants gaming (or chess) less respect. It's just useful to have a term that refers to athletic sports (rather than having to say "athletic" every time), in my opinion.
People don't USUALLY have the level of expertise in video games that professionals have in sports, with something like Starcraft being an exception, and I'm sure there's a few games that people have gotten that good at. But the reason isn't the amount of skill required, it's popularity and demand. Is Halo popular? Absolutely! Are people willing to spend a lot of money watching it on t.v. and going to competitions. No, not really. At least, not as many people as the number that go to sporting events. Because of this lack of demand, people aren't able to get tons of money doing it, get scholarships, go to special training for it, train for as many hours as they want because it's their job, etc.
I think it's useful not to consider them a sport. I don't think it grants gaming (or chess) less respect. It's just useful to have a term that refers to athletic sports (rather than having to say "athletic" every time), in my opinion.
Well, when 2 people mean different things when they say "football" or "hockey", they are BOTH wrong.sparkyk24 said:
Language is meant to serve a purpose.
If the word "sport" has any ambiguity to it at all, then slapping a word at the front of it may very well be necessary.
Athletics, however .. is the wrong word, since it means something in and of itself.
Y'know, running and jumping mainly.
This is the trail of my thoughts on the matter. Video games are in a league of their own, a league similar to that of film. That's not to say they're the same but similar. Building on that they're played on a screen, does this disqualify video games from sports simply because they are beyond the realm of physical reality? Not neccerceraly, in many cases they incorporate an element of competitive play (due to the ever growing multiplayer). This aspect of competition does not however make it a sport as competition is ever where. I used to work in a health and beauty store (Superdrug) and we were constantly competing with Boots, the shop across the road, which is the number 1 retailer. That doesn't however make it a sport. However on the other hand town planning was Olympic event during the early 20th century, demonstrating that anything can be a sport. This implies that there is more to sport than simple competition. So.. I suppose in conclusion I guess it could very well be! However I suppose it isn't because it's an entertainment medium fuelled by computers which could be cunningly rigged in one players favour or for some similar reason 
There are similarities, certainly, but as one moves more into the realm of sport as an athletic endeavor we quickly find games are quite different from "sports".Dirty Hipsters said:
Video games, by and large, trade on two distinct skill sets. The first is a purely "technical" skill: command input. As players learn to play games, the act of making one's avatar in the game (whatever it might be) do some desired action becomes easier until, in the best cases, the action of input is purely autonomous. I might think "I need to jump while coming around this corner" in Halo Reach and, after enough play, I can execute that action without any thought as to how I'm going to accomplish it. The second common skill is that of game knowledge. While this varies largely from game to game, this is the skill that lets me know that, at a particular moment in a game of Modern Warfare, that I ought to point my weapon in a particular direction in order to minimize the amount of input I need to achieve to engage a probable target. Other examples are knowing that, at a particular point in Dawn of War, that I'll start facing Assault Space Marines and will need to adjust my own strategy accordingly to ensure my ranged troops are able to participate in the battle at maximum efficiency.
These two skills have analogies in sports. While I have certainly played many sports (Soccer, football, baseball, etc), the one I have spent the most time with is fencing. Fencing too trades in similar skills. From the technical front, we have footwork and bladework (literally how to perform any of a variety of fencing actions) and on the knowledge front we have distance and timing (i.e. knowing when it is appropriate to execute any particular action). But it would be a lie to say that the outcome of any fencing match is determined by these skills alone. By the time a fencer is ready to compete in any serious setting (i.e., a competition outside of their own club), they will have mastered enough of these skills to ensure that they can execute the necessary (if not entirely optimal) maneuver at the right time. In a fencing match, the outcome is largely determined instead by the dialogue between the two fencers. Put another way, the winner of the fencing match is the fencer who most frequently forced their opponent into a position of weakness.
Very few genres of games even offer this opportunity in the most basic way. Fighting games, especially those of the highest quality, certainly operate in this way. When two sufficiently skilled players participate, the winner is not determined by who has better technical mastery but rather by who is best able to force a mistake on the part of an opponent. Strategy games too operate on this premise. I might, for example, build Assault Space Marines in Dawn of War because I expect the enemy to field troops vulnerable to such a troop choice. If my enemy chooses to field a unit like Banshees in large number, I am suddenly in a position of disadvantage as my Assault Marines, generally at least, cannot best a single banshee squad, much less several of them.
But even when we find these similarities, the differences still exist. Practicing for a sport of the athletic sort involves a great deal of suffering and discomfort. Simply put, there isn't anything terribly fun about a fencing practice where one performs a particular action to the point of perfection where, by the end of the night one's legs are barely capable of holding one upright. For the vast majority of video games, the wage required to do well is paid in an activity that is largely enjoyable. This is the fundamental difference between the athletic sports and everything else that qualifies under the loose interpretation of the word. Pushing your limits in sports like Basketball or Soccer or Fencing or Football has a toll paid in sweat and misery. Doing the same in a video game, even in the most extreme examples, never asks as much.
At the end of it all, the difference between a sport and a game is that to excel at a sport means to invite endless suffering while in a game it simply means dedication to a leisure activity that extends well beyond what an amateur could manage.
At it's heart I think all sports are just games that got elevated above rest of games. Any game can be a sport and every sport was a game at one point. Though videogames only count as a game same way sports used to be if played in multiplayer. As you need conflict with a chance for a victor to have a game. Really isn't any big difference in meaning from word sport to game for me.
Is chess a sport? It's not a physical one, of course, but it's widely considered one nonetheless.
Let's say I have a professional game of chess with someone. It's a sport. Is it any less of a sport if I have the same game with the same person over the internet? How does not physically moving the pieces change anything about the core of the sport?
If moving pieces digitally rather than manually doesn't stop chess from being a sport, then how can something being a video game stop it being a sport? The difference between game and sport is not in the medium in which the sport takes place, but the sport itself, whether real or digital.
Let's say I have a professional game of chess with someone. It's a sport. Is it any less of a sport if I have the same game with the same person over the internet? How does not physically moving the pieces change anything about the core of the sport?
If moving pieces digitally rather than manually doesn't stop chess from being a sport, then how can something being a video game stop it being a sport? The difference between game and sport is not in the medium in which the sport takes place, but the sport itself, whether real or digital.
Physical endurance? Obviously. Dedication. Hardly. And sports certainly weren't created to be competitive, at least not on such a level. I'd argue that they were probably created with the same mindset as games like TF2 and such.DustyLion said:
Again, others have pointed out, your example is ridiculously flawed. Why yes, many FPS games have common skills. Just as baseball and softball are rather similar. But I doubt a MW2 player would stand up in a competitive Halo game. Doesn't mean they can't play it. The differences become even more obvious in RTS games. Good luck competing properly in an RTS game if you have no familiarity with even basic strategy and units.
"Generally speaking, a sport is a game based in physical athleticism. Activities such as board games and card games are sometimes classified as "mind sports," but strictly speaking "sport" by itself refers to some physical activity. Non-competitive activities may also qualify, for example though jogging or playing catch are usually classified as forms of recreation, they may also be informally called "sports" due to their similarity to competitive games."
From Wikipedia. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sport]
So, they're certainly a mind sport, and as others have pointed out, informally things like chess have been called sports. Either way, competitive gaming is on a par with competitive sports, and about as much of a sport as chess.
I would just like to point out that if you put a Call of Duty player in Bad Company 2...he usually gets his ass beat five ways from Sunday, and then rages and goes back to black ops.
OT: . . . .I offer nothing towards this discussion.
OT: . . . .I offer nothing towards this discussion.
I don't think you have to call them sports, 'e-sports' is fine, just watch some StarCraft 2 players and you'll realize there is a massive amount of skill involved and with a good commentator they're really enjoyable to watch just like Street Fighter, with Seth Killian commentating you realize how legitimate games can be, but I don't think you have to just blankly call them 'sports' but they do require skill, a lot of skill.
Assuming chess and backgammon, which rely on strategy and skill rather than on having a physical dimension, can be considered "sports", then Virtual Football or Counter Strike could as well.
Of course, the term sport might not be particularly appropriate to use about chess. A more accurate description of it would perhaps be a "game" that can be played equally competitively and require as much training, skill, and devotion as any physical "sport" would to succeed in.
So I'd go with "game" for non-physically minded competitions of skill and ability (digital or IRL), "sport" for physically minded competitions of skill and ability, and "competition of skill and ability" as the catch-all definition.
...although there really isn't any clear definition of what exactly separates "games" from "sports", certainly not in layman's terms. It's called the Olympic Games after all.
Of course, the term sport might not be particularly appropriate to use about chess. A more accurate description of it would perhaps be a "game" that can be played equally competitively and require as much training, skill, and devotion as any physical "sport" would to succeed in.
So I'd go with "game" for non-physically minded competitions of skill and ability (digital or IRL), "sport" for physically minded competitions of skill and ability, and "competition of skill and ability" as the catch-all definition.
...although there really isn't any clear definition of what exactly separates "games" from "sports", certainly not in layman's terms. It's called the Olympic Games after all.