The Chess Thread

[bachfiend]

And chess isn't a game, it's a sport...

We don't have a "Sports" subforum so this is the best you get.

FIDE deciding that transgender women aren't allowed to participate in women-only competitions has nothing to do with games or sport, and everything to do with politics, so it's in the wrong subforum.

[daniel1948]

I learned the descriptive notation for chess (Pawn to King's Bishop 3), but I've never actually been good at the game. My failure is always in seeing the board position - I keep missing that rook about to take my queen.

That's what I've always loved about chess: Everything is right there on the board, for both players to see, but seeing it is way more difficult than it sounds. The combination that starts with an obscure move that seems to make no sense, ends with the capture of an important piece, or a winning position.

The best game I ever played was against a much stronger player, the strongest player in the chess club, mentioned in my post above. He had me nearly beaten in the opening, and he attacked my one remaining piece still in the center, a bishop. My only move seemed to be to pull it back to the first rank, at which point I'd have no sensible choice but to resign. But I saw an opportunity: I sacrificed the bishop for a pawn, and in so doing I opened up clear lines through the center. It was still a hard-fought game, and I was down a piece and two pawns (I'd already lost material earlier) but that opening that my sacrifice had created turned out to be more than he could resist, and after another half a dozen moves he had no choice but to resign.

Sometimes a sacrifice results in an almost immediate recapture of material. But the really beautiful sacrifices are the ones that produce a positional advantage and win the game without ever recovering the sacrificed material. That game was the best game, and the best sacrifice I ever played.

Needless to say, that was the only time I ever beat him. He really was a much better player than I. He was the best in town. But in that game he made a positional error that created the possibility that my sacrifice exploited.

Aron Nimzowitsch was arguably the best chess player of his day, but he never became world champion because he didn't have the mental stamina to play for hours on end in a tournament and remain sharp. He totally revolutionized chess theory, but could not endure the long grueling hours of a tournament. My biggest weakness was an inability to concentrate for long stretches of time. Whether studying for school or playing chess, after a couple of hours my brain craps out. But reading Nimzowitsch's book turned me from a pathetic chess player into an average one, in the informal club setting.

[CarbShark]

So there's no thread now available to post articles with dubious anti-transgender actions such as FIDE banning transgender women competing in women-only chess competitions, which I'd been the first to post.

The lack of such a thread notwithstanding, I have to say, seriously, that I have no idea why woman-only chess tournaments exist. Nor can I fathom why any self-respecting woman would ever compete in one.

Well, there are differences between men and women and some of those differences manifest in ways that go beyond genitalia, and some of those differences persist after gender transition.

If 85% or more of the world's chess masters are men, then a women's competition is probably good for the game.

I don't even know what it means for something to be good for chess.

Chess used to be far more popular than it is now, and many more people used to follow the high level competitions. In America, and probably most of the world, the only people who follow it are the ones with a significant skill level.

One result of this is that many people (men and women) whose brains are more "wired" to excel at chess are not exposed to the game at a young age.

That is bad for Chess.

Making competitive Chess more popular and accessible to a larger number of people is good for Chess.

And you should not judge women competing in such competitions.

It's sort of self-judging. Winning an open tournament is a greater accomplishment than winning a tournament in which those 85% of the world's best champions that you mentioned have been excluded.

I think the very existence of women's chess tournaments is condescending to women, and women who compete in such tournaments are complicit in perpetuating gender stereotypes. Should we also have Black chess tournaments? Indigenous chess tournaments? What else should we gender segregate? Math olympiads? Chemistry classes?

Slippery slope argument aside, the decision to offer women's chess division in tournaments was pushed for by women in chess. They were not condescending to themselves.

IIRC, when it was first set up it wasn't men's and women's, it was Open and Women's.

Winning women's chess tournaments and championships is quite an achievement. Those women are remarkable and deserve respect.

[jt512]

So there's no thread now available to post articles with dubious anti-transgender actions such as FIDE banning transgender women competing in women-only chess competitions, which I'd been the first to post.

The lack of such a thread notwithstanding, I have to say, seriously, that I have no idea why woman-only chess tournaments exist. Nor can I fathom why any self-respecting woman would ever compete in one.

Well, there are differences between men and women and some of those differences manifest in ways that go beyond genitalia, and some of those differences persist after gender transition.

If 85% or more of the world's chess masters are men, then a women's competition is probably good for the game.

I don't even know what it means for something to be good for chess.

Chess used to be far more popular than it is now, and many more people used to follow the high level competitions. In America, and probably most of the world, the only people who follow it are the ones with a significant skill level.

One result of this is that many people (men and women) whose brains are more "wired" to excel at chess are not exposed to the game at a young age.

That is bad for Chess.

Making competitive Chess more popular and accessible to a larger number of people is good for Chess.

And you should not judge women competing in such competitions.

It's sort of self-judging. Winning an open tournament is a greater accomplishment than winning a tournament in which those 85% of the world's best champions that you mentioned have been excluded.

I think the very existence of women's chess tournaments is condescending to women, and women who compete in such tournaments are complicit in perpetuating gender stereotypes. Should we also have Black chess tournaments? Indigenous chess tournaments? What else should we gender segregate? Math olympiads? Chemistry classes?

Slippery slope argument aside, the decision to offer women's chess division in tournaments was pushed for by women in chess. They were not condescending to themselves.

It is degrading to women, whether initiated by women or not.

[CarbShark]

So there's no thread now available to post articles with dubious anti-transgender actions such as FIDE banning transgender women competing in women-only chess competitions, which I'd been the first to post.

The lack of such a thread notwithstanding, I have to say, seriously, that I have no idea why woman-only chess tournaments exist. Nor can I fathom why any self-respecting woman would ever compete in one.

Well, there are differences between men and women and some of those differences manifest in ways that go beyond genitalia, and some of those differences persist after gender transition.

If 85% or more of the world's chess masters are men, then a women's competition is probably good for the game.

I don't even know what it means for something to be good for chess.

Chess used to be far more popular than it is now, and many more people used to follow the high level competitions. In America, and probably most of the world, the only people who follow it are the ones with a significant skill level.

One result of this is that many people (men and women) whose brains are more "wired" to excel at chess are not exposed to the game at a young age.

That is bad for Chess.

Making competitive Chess more popular and accessible to a larger number of people is good for Chess.

And you should not judge women competing in such competitions.

It's sort of self-judging. Winning an open tournament is a greater accomplishment than winning a tournament in which those 85% of the world's best champions that you mentioned have been excluded.

I think the very existence of women's chess tournaments is condescending to women, and women who compete in such tournaments are complicit in perpetuating gender stereotypes. Should we also have Black chess tournaments? Indigenous chess tournaments? What else should we gender segregate? Math olympiads? Chemistry classes?

Slippery slope argument aside, the decision to offer women's chess division in tournaments was pushed for by women in chess. They were not condescending to themselves.

It is degrading to women, whether initiated by women or not.

I'd rather hear the opinion of a woman on that.

[bachfiend]

Women could have pushed for women-only competitions if they were finding the atmosphere in open competitions to be misogynistic with harassment from male players.

I don't know whether chess is going to survive in the face of all the other distractions in modern society, with computer games, and so on.  But then again - young people, fortunately, are still taking up classical musical instruments.  Not all of them are going to find employment in orchestras.  And chess did manage to survive the bad image of the chess master assassin in 'From Russia with Love.'

[daniel1948]

... chess isn't a game, it's a sport,

Bullshit!

Chess is a board game with a huge following, that requires a high degree of specialized intellect. It's much more popular in some other countries than here, but even here many big cities have chess parks, and there are chess clubs all over the place. Even in prison there were chess players and I played many games there, losing more often than I expected to, given my (unwarranted!) preconceptions about the intelligence of "criminals." At Sandstone there was a man from Albania who spoke virtually no English, who I could not go more than about ten moves against without getting into such a ridiculously bad position that the only respectable course was to resign.

[Tassie Dave]

... chess isn't a game, it's a sport,

Bullshit!

Chess is a board game with a huge following, that requires a high degree of specialized intellect. It's much more popular in some other countries than here, but even here many big cities have chess parks, and there are chess clubs all over the place. Even in prison there were chess players and I played many games there, losing more often than I expected to, given my (unwarranted!) preconceptions about the intelligence of "criminals." At Sandstone there was a man from Albania who spoke virtually no English, who I could not go more than about ten moves against without getting into such a ridiculously bad position that the only respectable course was to resign.

It is recognised as a sport by the IOC (International Olympic Committee) and is eligible to apply to be held at any future Olympics.

It was an exhibition sport at the 2000 Sydney Olympics and did apply to be a full medal sport at the 202021 Tokyo Olympics

[jt512]

So there's no thread now available to post articles with dubious anti-transgender actions such as FIDE banning transgender women competing in women-only chess competitions, which I'd been the first to post.

The lack of such a thread notwithstanding, I have to say, seriously, that I have no idea why woman-only chess tournaments exist. Nor can I fathom why any self-respecting woman would ever compete in one.

Well, there are differences between men and women and some of those differences manifest in ways that go beyond genitalia, and some of those differences persist after gender transition.

If 85% or more of the world's chess masters are men, then a women's competition is probably good for the game.

I don't even know what it means for something to be good for chess.

Chess used to be far more popular than it is now, and many more people used to follow the high level competitions. In America, and probably most of the world, the only people who follow it are the ones with a significant skill level.

One result of this is that many people (men and women) whose brains are more "wired" to excel at chess are not exposed to the game at a young age.

That is bad for Chess.

Making competitive Chess more popular and accessible to a larger number of people is good for Chess.

And you should not judge women competing in such competitions.

It's sort of self-judging. Winning an open tournament is a greater accomplishment than winning a tournament in which those 85% of the world's best champions that you mentioned have been excluded.

I think the very existence of women's chess tournaments is condescending to women, and women who compete in such tournaments are complicit in perpetuating gender stereotypes. Should we also have Black chess tournaments? Indigenous chess tournaments? What else should we gender segregate? Math olympiads? Chemistry classes?

Slippery slope argument aside, the decision to offer women's chess division in tournaments was pushed for by women in chess. They were not condescending to themselves.

It is degrading to women, whether initiated by women or not.

I'd rather hear the opinion of a woman on that.

Fair enough. Marilyn vos Savant writes,

"Note that 85 percent of the members of the U.S. Chess Federation are male. Hosting events for women may be a well-intentioned effort to encourage more female activity, but they imply inferiority, which is inherently damaging."

[daniel1948]

... chess isn't a game, it's a sport,

Bullshit!

Chess is a board game with a huge following, that requires a high degree of specialized intellect. It's much more popular in some other countries than here, but even here many big cities have chess parks, and there are chess clubs all over the place. Even in prison there were chess players and I played many games there, losing more often than I expected to, given my (unwarranted!) preconceptions about the intelligence of "criminals." At Sandstone there was a man from Albania who spoke virtually no English, who I could not go more than about ten moves against without getting into such a ridiculously bad position that the only respectable course was to resign.

It is recognised as a sport by the IOC (International Olympic Committee) and is eligible to apply to be held at any future Olympics.

It was an exhibition sport at the 2000 Sydney Olympics and did apply to be a full medal sport at the 202021 Tokyo Olympics

How about tic tac toe? Is that a sport? Is Monopoly a sport? How about beer pong? Is that a sport? Mowing the lawn is closer to being a sport than any board game is.

I don't give a fuck what the IOC says. I've got no problem if they want to have chess at the Olympics because the Olympics are bullshit anyway.

Chess is a game. Specifically a board game.

[Tassie Dave]

Chess is a highly skilled game (yes I said game  ) that requires years of learning and even then only the very best will excel at the highest levels. There is no luck involved unlike many physical sports.

Golf is undoubtably a sport, but it is a game that can be decided on luck.
Yes that lucky shot is honed on years of practice at getting it close enough for luck to be a factor

"The more I practice, the luckier I get,"
-Gary Player

Is F1 a sport? You sit in a car and steer it around a course. The difference between the very best that win titles and the next level driving the same car who occasionally win a race is 95% above the shoulders.

Is bowling a sport? Shooting and archery are all about hand/eye coordination and being able to control your heart rate. Not athletic ability. Are they sport?

Dressage preparation is all done on the training track. The horse knows what it has to do and the rider has minimal impact on the day of the event. Is it a sport?

Of course they all are.

Something can be a game and a sport. Playing darts at the local pub is a game and when you play professionally it is a sport.

Playing computer games professionally is a sport. We even call it eSports. It's still a game.

[bachfiend]

... chess isn't a game, it's a sport,

Bullshit!

Chess is a board game with a huge following, that requires a high degree of specialized intellect. It's much more popular in some other countries than here, but even here many big cities have chess parks, and there are chess clubs all over the place. Even in prison there were chess players and I played many games there, losing more often than I expected to, given my (unwarranted!) preconceptions about the intelligence of "criminals." At Sandstone there was a man from Albania who spoke virtually no English, who I could not go more than about ten moves against without getting into such a ridiculously bad position that the only respectable course was to resign.

You're engaging in the Creationist tactic of cherry picking comments.  I wrote 'chess isn't a game, it's a sport, at least according to the FIDE, which is why they decided that transgender women weren't allowed to play in women-only chess competitions,' more or less (I haven't bothered checking the exact words.

It's a 'sport' according to FIDE, not to me.  In the original thread I'd asked what competitive advantage transgender women chess players would gain.  Perhaps if the chess pieces were supersized?  And made of solid gold?

[daniel1948]

At a minimum, "sport" implies some sort of physical activity. There is certainly a grey area and some activities can be argued either way. But picking up and moving a small wooden chess piece and then pressing a clock button is not by any reasonable criterion a physical activity.

Many sports can be games, and many games are sports. But not all games are sports. Chess is not a sport even if FIDE has decided to call it that in order to squeeze it into the Olympics.

[arthwollipot]

I disagree. I think the minimum defining feature of "sport" is the aspect of competition for recognition. If you win a game, you don't get anything except for the satisfaction of having won. Winning at sport carries a stake.

This is why in my opinion a given pastime could be either a sport or a game.

[daniel1948]

I disagree. I think the minimum defining feature of "sport" is the aspect of competition for recognition. If you win a game, you don't get anything except for the satisfaction of having won. Winning at sport carries a stake.

This is why in my opinion a given pastime could be either a sport or a game.

So an informal pick-up baseball game among friends where winning is secondary to having fun in the fresh air is not "sport"?

During the brief year that I rode a road bicycle I belonged to a cycling club. We had irregular club bike rides out in the countryside. We'd have a destination, but no competition: We all went at the pace of the slowest rider. Was that "sport"? It certainly wasn't a "game" by any definition.

ETA:

I think that a pick-up baseball game where winning is secondary to having fun; a group bicycle ride where everybody goes at the pace of the slowest rider; a recreational canoe paddle where a boatload of people paddle for fun and exercise and each person just paddles as hard as they feel like, are all sports. They're just not competitive sports.