so weird... hikaru wasted the timer to win

@ClayAndSilence said in #30:
> Michael Johnson used to describe this aspect of his training as designing the "most efficient way of getting from point A to point B", or words to that effect.

Actually I'd say there may be some truth in the Michael Johnson example. Middle distance sprinting more than any other pure running competition I guess would have marginal gains which could be made from honing technique.

But funnily enough, go either way and I'd disagree that any "skill" as such was really involved.

e.g. Bolt - He, quite notoriously, could have awful starts but his sheet size and physicality would pull him through. Fantastic to watch sure but I'm not sure any skill he was pulling over his competitors was involved.

Kipchoge and his recent performances is a whole different subject (!) but as to distance running itself my anecdotal experience would make me question the involvement of skill.

I ran for over 10 years doing half marathons and 10ks before attempting a marathon. First one I ran over 3 hours. Two years later I ran nearly half an hour quicker. I don't believe I acquired any additional running "skill" in that period or made any changes to my technique, which I hadn't had in the decade of running before. I simply gained in endurance and mental fortitude and came closer to what my body was capable of doing. I think that's the same at the top level - maybe you could call developing that mental fortitude as a skill but funnily enough in a way that isn't too dissimilar to chess!

Endurance sports are funny though - Take cycling and the tour de France. Drugs and artificial EPO aside - Is the champion cyclist the most skilful or the guy who's kidneys naturally produces EPO the best?

@ThePaulKrapence said in #31:

> e.g. Bolt - He, quite notoriously, could have awful starts but his sheet size and physicality would pull him through. Fantastic to watch sure but I'm not sure any skill he was pulling over his competitors was involved.

It's not clear to me why you don't regard his physical prowess as a form of skill? Moving your body is a skilled endeavour. Some are better at it than others. He developed that over many years through exacting training, much as you did by improving your marathon time. Gaining fitness is itself a skilled physical activity, which he and you improved over a period of time. Yes, Bolt was a poor starter, had an average transition phase (partly because of his height), but his middle and end stage were running perfection, not simply "physicality", which I think underplays what he was doing. Also, whilst he may have been relatively less skilled in these than other competitors, it doesn't follow that he is unskilled, just less skilled.

> Kipchoge and his recent performances is a whole different subject (!) but as to distance running itself my anecdotal experience would make me question the involvement of skill.

Like you, I ran for many years, including marathons. Whilst I was a modest runner, I trained with guys who were serious athletes (one was an Olympian with a 2.12 marathon to his name!), and they were definitely more skilled than me! They had smoother running actions, had developed longer stride patterns, had more efficient arm and head movements, as well as having built up - through skilled training - greater stamina, which I suppose is an outcome of skilled activity rather than a skill itself. It is though, overall, I'd argue, skilled human endeavour.

> Endurance sports are funny though - Take cycling and the tour de France. Drugs and artificial EPO aside - Is the champion cyclist the most skilful or the guy who's kidneys naturally produces EPO the best?

That's fair comment, some attributes are innate and not skilled as such. That said, even ordinary club cyclists are skilled in terms of bike handling, body position, co-ordination, even if they're not to the standard of elite performers.

I think you do your own achievements a disservice by not recognising them as the outcome of skills. Sub-3 hour marathons aren't handed out for free :)

While I agree with you, in such examples of running, it does require skill to compete, as does chess. While most of the sports you think about like football and basketball are athletic sports, chess is also a sport, and I agree, is one of the *best*. Chess competing at the highest levels is physically demanding as well, as games can go to 9 hours long, and requires skill to compete. The game's competitive and universal, and recognized as a sport. You can believe what you want, but the debate has already been settled and classified as a sport.

P.S. Some information about that is here: www.chess.com/article/view/is-chess-a-sport

P.P.S. Anybody wonder how a forum changed from "so weird... hikaru wasted the timer to win" to "is chess a sport?" XD

@LeonFalcon20 said in #33:

> but the debate has already been settled and classified as a sport.

Well, that's not correct. Just because some organisations *claim* it's a sport doesn't make it so. If I genuinely thought myself to be the most handsome man on the planet, it wouldn't necessarily make it true. Philosophers of sport, who spend quite a lot of time and energy thinking about these issues, would generally agree that it is not a sport.

I have a question for you, and for anyone who wants chess designated as a sport... why is this important to you/them? Why does calling a chess a "game" seem to upset people? That is a a genuine question, asked in a spirit of friendly enquiry.

As I said earlier, and worth repeating, I think chess is superior to many sports in terms of the skill required and its capacity for aesthetic beauty. I don't want to call it a sport for the sake of accuracy, not because I think it's "less than".

If chess is a sport, one played without a physical skill dimension, then so is snakes and ladders, and surely that can't be right.

@ClayAndSilence I like Your idea, let's create institution, which will approve your claim of being the most handsome man on the planet, we pay media to make rest of mankind believe it, also make them talk continously and endlessly about whether and why are you the most handsome, or whether handsome standards need to be reviewed :D At he end of this we will have 30% of people believing you are the most handsome, 30% believing you are not, and (I hope at least) 40% of people not giving a sh.t on this important matter, same important as whether chess should be called just a game or also a sport :D

@ClayAndSilence said in #32:
> That's fair comment, some attributes are innate and not skilled as such.

I think that's my view as to running. Like you said, stride patterns, etc will improve with improved fitness, etc but only to match what your innate potential was.

Now not everyone will put the work in to reach that potential and people will have different maximum potentials but I don't see people who do reach that potential at the highest level have shown a "skill" as such. That's not to say they haven't achieved incredible success in their sport but again, like the cyclists, a large part of that is physiological with again EPO production & body build large factors.

I guess it depends how you define skill - for me what someone like Maradona did is a totally different thing from Bekele, Kipchoge, etc.

@ThePaulKrapence said in #36:

> I guess it depends how you define skill - for me what someone like Maradona did is a totally different thing from Bekele, Kipchoge, etc.

I'll concede the point in gratitude for you name-checking Diego rather than anyone else. El pibe de oro.

i dont know how

it feels like Magnus is letting hakaru win... the old magnus would never have given up against hakaru

Magnus is a wealthy man now. Maybe, much like Morphy, chess is now snapping into his life's proper perspective?

They are both about the same age as when Morphy 'normalized' his life ...