Chess is a sport

Recap | My opponent conceded, that the only part of the definition given by him (Con - Round 1), that he regards as not fulfilled, is the physical exertion and exhaustion caused during a game of chess.He states the following arguments:- physical exertion derives from physical movement not a biological entity. - just causing exhaustion does not qualify a sport- stress has no part in the exhaustion during sport (A/N this is freely paraphrased as Con did not actually name his premise here, he leaves me with the guess - I hope Con can clarify this point further if I am severely mistaken) Con already made two mistakes during the second round:1st He started with rebuttals, although the 2nd round, according to the rules to which he agreed by taking the challenge, was solely for arguments. This is a technical fault. If Con did not agree with the outline of the debate, we should have solved that issue before posting his answer. In fact, all that Con has given so far are rebuttals therefore he does not actually have proper own premises, that's why in the following I'll refere to Cons arguments as "premises" in doubtful quotation marks, as they are all mere rebuttals. 2nd He critiques the definition, which was introduced by himself or overlooks the necessity of a full-applying Definition to qualify a sport -see Rebuttal for further explanation of this point Counter Rebuttal "Con-Premise" 1 | physical exertion does not only derive from physical movement [and Con can not pre-limit the definition further to his own advantage, without explaining why this is crucial to qualify a sport]In Round 2 have I already shown that the brain is part of the human body, therefore part of his physiology. Exhaustion of the brain and because of the brain can therefore be seen as physical exhaustion, therefore only be caused by physical exertion. That we can't see synapses proceed an increased amount of electrical impulses does not mean the brain isn't doing something.Limiting the definition to being a heavy movement-based activity is incorrect as the definition provided by Con does not imply it. This means he either critiques that his definition is not enough to qualify a sport or he adds another limitation without properly explaining, why this limitation is necessary.Other sports that include little actual movement by the athlete but still are usually considered sports are race-driving or shooting. Both require more movement than chess but still significantly less than running or swimming. Counter Rebuttal "Con-Premise" 2 | Just being exhausting/ burning calories is not enough to qualify a sport; standing is not a sport - yet is this not enough to disqualify chess as a sport. This is where Con right, by being totally wrong in the conclusion. Something that is physically exhausting is not automatically a sport. Yet something that is physically exhausting can be a sport. The crucial point is, that all the other parts of the definition need to be fulfilled as well. As Con already agreed that these are fulfilled by chess (-see Recap -see Con Round 2) the resolution that chess requires physical exertion is enough to fully fulfill my BOP. Running for example is widely considered a highly exhausting activity which is, under the right circumstances considered a sport. These "right circumstances" are given, when all other parts of the definition are fulfilled. Running from home to the bus station for example is not a sport as the intention is not to entertain but to catch a ride. Counter Rebuttal "Con-Premise" 3 | Stress is part of sports. That stress has no part in sports and sport-related exhaustion is obviously wrong. Many athletes report nervousness before a big match or competition. The adrenaline that the body produces during emotional and psychological stress directly leads to physical stress. It allows the athletes to perform even better than during mere training and there is no evidence whatsoever that competition-induced stress from Runners is biologically different than the competition-stress experienced by chess players. Adrenaline is adrenaline. Why it's produced is so far neither crucial to fulfill the definition nor of any difference for the physiology that has to cope with it. Counter Rebuttal "Additional Observation" | ad hominem/ Competition factor is not givenThe last observation given by Con that is (probably?!) a rebuttal to my explanation how chess can be a game and a sport. It starts with a lot sugar coating/ empty ad hominem addressing that uncomfortably makes me want to remind my opponent, that I am a fully grown woman and not a stubborn little girl ;D The last sentence yet has an actual argument in it, by saying that chess is no competition. This is weak for the following reasons:- The given definition for competition and game does not imply that being a game or a competition is in any form relevant to evaluate whether it is a sport. - All ball-sports are game-based. Yet they are commonly considered sports- In a chess tournament not all players always play all players. They are therefore allowed to attack in a certain game, the overall tournament yet is a competition, as they can't attack other players while they play against each other.- I am also confused by the statement that it "does not matter how competitive it is" when it's a game and not a competition. That might be poor use of words but a competitive situation that is no competition? I am not a native-English, but that sounds wrong to my ears. If Con wishes to include the definition of competition and game into this debate (as he introduced them) he should first be able to explain me and the readers why this is actually relevant. Additional Argument | Chess has physical movement in it; shifted focus is valid.Chess has physical movement. The act of lifting your arm and pushing a piece from one end of the board to another is visually recognisable movement. Currently chess is not a common sport for Jedis. Shooting, like during biathlon, has similar characteristics by being rather still and minimalistic in it's movement, having the focus on mental precision. The thinking and strategic performance is more important for success than the exhaustion-ratio of the movement (brain performance > movement). The required hand-eye-coordination is something that is brain-based not muscle based.Examples: Sprint | movement > strategy/ coordinationMarathon | movement = strategy Boxing | movement = strategy Shooting | movement < strategy/ mental performance The fact that chess is on the lower end of the physical-movement-to-strategic-performance-relation does not automatically exclude it from being a sport and has no clear relevance for the initially given definition. I only present this argument as, so far, Con denies chess any form of physical movement, or better, all his arguments base on the assumption that there is no physical movement at all. Although I feel personally comfortable that chess is even a sport, if the players do not have to move the pieces themselves, this scenario is hypothetical and in reality there (usually) is physical movement. There is no need for me to make my case more difficult than it already is, by conceding to assumptions that are not generally true.Conclusion | Definition and further limitationsI have shown that chess fulfills Cons Round 1 definition, which I indirectly agreed to by not protesting. I don't see how Con can justify to add further limitations to my BOP if he fails to properly outline why his own core factors are not enough. I see it the following way:Con either needs to show- why only physical movement can be physical exertion (and probably also, why minimal movement is no physical movement at all)OR - why his own requirements given in Round one are not longer enough, therefore why he was wrong.