Heh. Remember my blog posts about chess and bridge not being sports? This philosopher agrees. It's amazing to me that, when you say that chess and bridge are not sports, aficionados of those activities hear it as a criticism. It's not at all a criticism! Chess and bridge are highly competitive, intellectually challenging, and, for all I know, enjoyable games; but why in the world would someone think that they're sports? Not all games are sports. Not all competitive games are sports. Not all good things are sports. Eating is not a sport; sex is not a sport. Am I criticizing those activities in saying that? Am I in any way slighting them, belittling them, or disparaging them? So the question is: Why are chess and bridge aficionados so touchy and defensive?
Sport
–––––––
