This House would introduce Chess at the Olympics

Chess is not a predominantly physical sport, yet neither are shooting and curling (which, in fact, has been nicknamed “chess on ice”⁵). The opposition may respond that the determining factor in these is still physical, such as speed and precision. However, chess too requires precise calculation in short periods of time. There is no relevant distinction to be drawn between the human brain and other organs: both can be trained and strained, and doing so should be equally rewarded.

More importantly, taekwondo is a further example of what may be called a mind sport. As in chess, both participants have the same set of moves which can be combined in a near infinite number of ways: it thus becomes a battle of intellect and strategy rather than strength. The body merely becomes the vessel through which to compete, precisely as a chess board. Although the vessels are different, the fundamental activity is the same, and thus if taekwondo is valid as an Olympic sport, so should chess be.

[5] Tomlinson, Brett. “Chess on ice”, Princeton Alumni Weekly, 28 January 2009. http://paw.princeton.edu/issues/2009/01/28/pages/5296/index.xml

The fact that the body is the vessel in shooting, curling and taekwondo is more relevant than this argument suggests. It means that the final determining factors are physical ones, such as speed, control, and precision. In chess, although stamina is involved, it could never be sufficient to win a game. The determining factors are intellectual, such as the mind’s precision in calculating many moves into the future. The brain is an organ: but we do not call anything that tires our brain a sport.

When the IOC spokeswoman Emmanuelle Moreau stated that “mind sports, by their nature, cannot be part of the program”⁶, she contradicted Olympic history. The Ancient Greek Panhellenic Games (forerunners of the modern Olympic Games) indeed emphasised musical, theatrical and painting competitions.⁷ Even the modern Olympic Games had non-physical competitions such as painting, design and poetry between 1912 and 1952.⁸ Through chess, the cultural and mental aspect now lost in the Olympic Games is protected. The limits of human capability can be investigated from a new, intellectual, angle. This would allow the Games to celebrate, as intended, human potential in its entirety.

[6] Haire, Meaghan. “Should Chess Be an Olympic Sport?” TIME, 5 August 2008. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1827716,00.html

[7] "Pythian Games." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online Academic Edition. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2013. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/485272/Pythian-Games

[8] Conway, Richard. “The Curious History of Olympic Art Competitions”, Huffington Post, 26 July 2012. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-conway/history-of-olympic-art-competitions_b_1705248.html

It is not a good in itself to make modern Olympics resemble the ancient events as much as possible. Ancient Games, for instance, only allowed men to compete, and many of the sports involved today did not exist then. Progress is generally considered a good thing, and the purpose and meaning of the Olympics has progressed since then. This does not mean that art and culture have no place, and indeed there are cultural festivities surrounding every Olympic event. But modern Olympics have an identity of their own, and the question of whether chess belongs to it is a different one.

The sports in the Olympics promote good values: they display attributes and disciplines that we want to encourage in society and children in particular. Chess is no different from this. Numerous studies have shown that chess has large cognitive benefits, strengthening a wide range of skills: problem-solving, decision-making, memory, mathematics, logic, and creative thinking.^9, 10 These are skills we want to actively promote, and thus if including chess in the Olympics would increase its support, we should do so.

Making chess an Olympic sport would make it more accessible to people who would otherwise not watch it. It would also incentivise young enthusiasts to become more involved in the hope of participating in such a recognised competition. Bringing chess to a highly recognised event would doubtless increase support, and thus have an objectively positive impact on society.

[9] Dr Dauvergne, Peter. “The Case for Chess as a Tool to Develop Our Children’s Minds”, University of Sydney, July 2000. http://www.auschess.org.au/articles/chessmind.htm

[10] Dr Ferguson, Robert. “Chess in Education: Research Summary”, for the BMCC Chess in Education, “A Wise Move” Conference. http://uschesstrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/chess-in-education-research-summary-by-robert-ferguson.pdf

The benefits of chess should be promoted in their right context: a competition exclusively about chess can emphasise these aspects. The Olympics’ motto, on the other hand, is “Faster, higher, stronger”¹¹: chess is very much in the periphery of its message. Such an event is incapable of emphasising all of chess’ merits without a serious and controversial transformation. It is even unlikely to gather more viewers for chess when it competes with other sports, closer to the Olympics’ purpose.

[11] “Opening Ceremony”, International Olympics Committee, 2002. http://www.olympic.org/Documents/Reports/EN/en_report_268.pdf

Chess is among the sports with the greatest number of federations and of active participants worldwide.¹² Its large fan base, however, is completely unrepresented in the world’s largest sports competition.

Chess, furthermore, is highly viewer friendly, so its popularity would only flourish from its representation. It is possible to broadcast any game online, for all to watch at home. Games also often feature high commentary action explaining and analysing the players’ strategies, to make them approachable and exciting to the public. Furthermore, it could take the shape of a team sport in the Olympics, leaving greater space for tactics and discouraging draws, once again making it more appealing for a broad audience.

[12] “FIDE – World Chess Federation”, FIDE, 8 April 2009. http://www.fide.com/fide.html

Chess is not as appealing to an ignorant observer as other sports, by virtue of not being physical. Most people can relate to the impressive nature of Olympic gymnastics or a goal-scoring back-flip, even without knowing the rules or the complex strategies involved. This is not the case for chess: it requires a more patient and informed audience. Even if it is viewer friendly for its strong fan base, it is unlikely to gather more support in the Olympics, where many other more established sports are also at their most available.

Chess is not a predominantly physical sport, yet neither are shooting and curling (which, in fact, has been nicknamed “chess on ice”⁵). The opposition may respond that the determining factor in these is still physical, such as speed and precision. However, chess too requires precise calculation in short periods of time. There is no relevant distinction to be drawn between the human brain and other organs: both can be trained and strained, and doing so should be equally rewarded.

More importantly, taekwondo is a further example of what may be called a mind sport. As in chess, both participants have the same set of moves which can be combined in a near infinite number of ways: it thus becomes a battle of intellect and strategy rather than strength. The body merely becomes the vessel through which to compete, precisely as a chess board. Although the vessels are different, the fundamental activity is the same, and thus if taekwondo is valid as an Olympic sport, so should chess be.

[5] Tomlinson, Brett. “Chess on ice”, Princeton Alumni Weekly, 28 January 2009. http://paw.princeton.edu/issues/2009/01/28/pages/5296/index.xml

The fact that the body is the vessel in shooting, curling and taekwondo is more relevant than this argument suggests. It means that the final determining factors are physical ones, such as speed, control, and precision. In chess, although stamina is involved, it could never be sufficient to win a game. The determining factors are intellectual, such as the mind’s precision in calculating many moves into the future. The brain is an organ: but we do not call anything that tires our brain a sport.

When the IOC spokeswoman Emmanuelle Moreau stated that “mind sports, by their nature, cannot be part of the program”⁶, she contradicted Olympic history. The Ancient Greek Panhellenic Games (forerunners of the modern Olympic Games) indeed emphasised musical, theatrical and painting competitions.⁷ Even the modern Olympic Games had non-physical competitions such as painting, design and poetry between 1912 and 1952.⁸ Through chess, the cultural and mental aspect now lost in the Olympic Games is protected. The limits of human capability can be investigated from a new, intellectual, angle. This would allow the Games to celebrate, as intended, human potential in its entirety.

[6] Haire, Meaghan. “Should Chess Be an Olympic Sport?” TIME, 5 August 2008. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1827716,00.html

[7] "Pythian Games." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online Academic Edition. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2013. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/485272/Pythian-Games

[8] Conway, Richard. “The Curious History of Olympic Art Competitions”, Huffington Post, 26 July 2012. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-conway/history-of-olympic-art-competitions_b_1705248.html

It is not a good in itself to make modern Olympics resemble the ancient events as much as possible. Ancient Games, for instance, only allowed men to compete, and many of the sports involved today did not exist then. Progress is generally considered a good thing, and the purpose and meaning of the Olympics has progressed since then. This does not mean that art and culture have no place, and indeed there are cultural festivities surrounding every Olympic event. But modern Olympics have an identity of their own, and the question of whether chess belongs to it is a different one.

The sports in the Olympics promote good values: they display attributes and disciplines that we want to encourage in society and children in particular. Chess is no different from this. Numerous studies have shown that chess has large cognitive benefits, strengthening a wide range of skills: problem-solving, decision-making, memory, mathematics, logic, and creative thinking.^9, 10 These are skills we want to actively promote, and thus if including chess in the Olympics would increase its support, we should do so.

Making chess an Olympic sport would make it more accessible to people who would otherwise not watch it. It would also incentivise young enthusiasts to become more involved in the hope of participating in such a recognised competition. Bringing chess to a highly recognised event would doubtless increase support, and thus have an objectively positive impact on society.

[9] Dr Dauvergne, Peter. “The Case for Chess as a Tool to Develop Our Children’s Minds”, University of Sydney, July 2000. http://www.auschess.org.au/articles/chessmind.htm

[10] Dr Ferguson, Robert. “Chess in Education: Research Summary”, for the BMCC Chess in Education, “A Wise Move” Conference. http://uschesstrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/chess-in-education-research-summary-by-robert-ferguson.pdf

The benefits of chess should be promoted in their right context: a competition exclusively about chess can emphasise these aspects. The Olympics’ motto, on the other hand, is “Faster, higher, stronger”¹¹: chess is very much in the periphery of its message. Such an event is incapable of emphasising all of chess’ merits without a serious and controversial transformation. It is even unlikely to gather more viewers for chess when it competes with other sports, closer to the Olympics’ purpose.

[11] “Opening Ceremony”, International Olympics Committee, 2002. http://www.olympic.org/Documents/Reports/EN/en_report_268.pdf

Chess is among the sports with the greatest number of federations and of active participants worldwide.¹² Its large fan base, however, is completely unrepresented in the world’s largest sports competition.

Chess, furthermore, is highly viewer friendly, so its popularity would only flourish from its representation. It is possible to broadcast any game online, for all to watch at home. Games also often feature high commentary action explaining and analysing the players’ strategies, to make them approachable and exciting to the public. Furthermore, it could take the shape of a team sport in the Olympics, leaving greater space for tactics and discouraging draws, once again making it more appealing for a broad audience.

[12] “FIDE – World Chess Federation”, FIDE, 8 April 2009. http://www.fide.com/fide.html

Chess is not as appealing to an ignorant observer as other sports, by virtue of not being physical. Most people can relate to the impressive nature of Olympic gymnastics or a goal-scoring back-flip, even without knowing the rules or the complex strategies involved. This is not the case for chess: it requires a more patient and informed audience. Even if it is viewer friendly for its strong fan base, it is unlikely to gather more support in the Olympics, where many other more established sports are also at their most available.

Sports are about the perfection of our bodies, and therefore the competitive aspect of sport should relate directly to that perfection. In the Fundamental Principles of Olympism in the Olympic Charter the first is “combining in a balanced whole the qualities of body, will and mind”.¹³ Although we value the mental battle between athletes, we find that kind of exertion secondary, and not the core of sport which is the physical aspect. Chess consists only of the mind and to a lesser extent the will. It does not matter how well you can move the pieces from one square to the other. Therefore, chess celebrates a different aspect of the human condition than the Olympics and sports as a whole do: it cannot be an Olympic sport.

[13] “Fundamental Principles of Olympism”, Olympic Charter, 8 July 2011, http://www.olympic.org/Documents/olympic_charter_en.pdf p.10

Attempts to separate chess from other sports merely misunderstand the discipline. There is much more than this to chess: it requires precision, speed, stamina, and commitment. Unlike many other games the element of chance does not exist. Furthermore, chess has an infinite number of variations, so it provides a timeless platform on which to measure human ability. It would cohere perfectly with Olympic goals and values.

Even if we were to accept all other reasons for including chess in the Olympic Games, it is actually not implementable. The Olympics have strict regulations against any form of cheating in their sports¹⁴, and have thus required chess competitions to be subject to drug tests before they can be considered. However, cheating in chess goes far beyond doping. There have been abundant chess scandals where players used computer programmes to aid them throughout the game. As technology develops, it is likely that these will become even harder to detect.

Furthermore, another form of cheating that is impossible to prevent is collusion. Players can meet beforehand and agree to draw games for their mutual advantage¹⁵. Both of these kinds of cheating are impossible to regulate, and thus chess cannot compatible with the Olympics’ zero-tolerance regulations.

[14] “Factsheet: The fight against doping and promotion of athletes’ health”, International Olympic Committee. January 2013. http://www.olympic.org/Documents/Reference_documents_Factsheets/Fight_against_doping.pdf

[15] Everding, Gerry. “Cheating in world chess championships is nothing new, study suggests”, Newsroom, Washington University in St. Louis, 9 October 2006. http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/7935.aspx

It has consistently proven impossible to prevent doping in any Olympic sport. Despite many scandals we still have cycling, for example, in the Olympics. It will too get harder to prevent this, as drugs develop at a similar rate to technology to be more easily concealed. This is therefore no reason to exclude chess: we should merely take steps towards stricter controls and sanctions in the discipline.

Opening up the Olympics for chess leads to a dangerous slippery slope. After this concession it becomes extremely difficult to draw the line for bridge, poker, or even videogames. This is problematic, because in the status quo there are many sports that are universally recognised as such (unlike those mentioned above), and yet have to be excluded from the Olympics due to lack of space. These include bandy, baseball, bowling, cricket, netball, rugby, softball and rugby. All of these already have massive support internationally and form a coherent category. As a result of this lack of space some sports are sometimes replaced, for example at the moment wrestling is not certain to take place at the 2020 Olympics with baseball and squash vying to take its place.¹⁶

Chess, bridge, and similar games, on the other hand, have a very different nature. It makes more sense for the future of both categories to draw a distinction between conventional sports on one hand, and mind games on the other. That way, as many players as possible can participate in a top level competition, with more space in the Olympics for physical sports, and competitions such as the World Mind Sports Games dedicated to mind games.¹⁷

[16] AP “Wrestling, baseball-softball, squash make 2020 Olympics short list”, CBS, 29 May 2013, http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-400_162-57586663/wrestling-baseball-softball-squash-make-2020-olympics-short-list/

[17] “History”, International Mind Sports Association. http://www.imsaworld.com/wp/about-imsa/history/

The Olympic does not hold precedence as a justification for including a given sport. They do not have fixed guidelines, and they include sports on a case by case basis. Therefore, it seems unlikely that this would force the IOC to accept other mind games. Bridge and poker, for instance, rely on an element of chance, which chess does not. This is a criterion that impacts their appropriateness for assessing human potential, and a ground on which other mind sports ought not to be included.

Furthermore, it may well be true that the Olympics cannot continue expanding due to lack of space, and the inability of most countries to host such large events. However, chess is one of the examples where the least space and infrastructure is required. This is an argument for not having infinite sports, but it provides no reason to exclude chess from a finite selection.

It would not benefit chess to become a part of the Olympics. In the status quo, the World Chess Federation organises a Chess Olympiad every second year, clashing with the Olympic Games. If the motion passed, the Chess Olympiad and many other chess competitions would, if not disappear, at least lose much of their prestige and popularity.

This is harmful for the chess community. Although chess-specific tournaments are less renown internationally than the Olympics, they have a high status within its fan base. In the Olympics, chess would become meshed with other sports with which it shares nothing. Having to compete for viewers with other sports’ Olympic tradition, it would be unlikely to amass great support. Thus, chess would risk both losing its own successful competitive events, and failing to obtain an equally high status in the Olympics.

All other Olympic sports have their own competitions. Even if the Olympiad was to fade out due to clashes, other prestigious competitions will doubtless remain as in any other sport.

Being recognised as an Olympic sport would be a great gain for the chess community. Exposure creates attention and support: for example, chess had its first boom in Norway after Magnus Carlsen became internationally recognised¹⁸. Being part of the Olympics will show people the benefits of chess and provide a higher platform towards which amateurs can strive.

[18] “Norway makes its international chess move”, News & Events, Norway: The Official Site in the UK, 3 September 2010. http://www.norway.org.uk/News_and_events/Current-Affairs/Norway-makes-its-move-in-the-international-chess-world/