->DN> ->->DN>If a computer can beat the world's best at it, it's not a
->DN> ->->
->DN> ->->DN>Chess is a game.
->DN> ->->
->DN> ->->I disagree with your logic.  Machines can beat the best runn
->DN> ->->race, does that mean racing is not sport?
->DN> ->
->DN> ->DN>Nothing wrong with my logic.  Machines do not equal compute
->DN> ->
->DN> ->Computers are machines.  As are cars.
->DN>
->DN> Fine.  Let me clarify.
->DN>
->DN> If an IBM Personal computer, in a stationary form, can beat the
->DN> it's not a sport.
->
->Well that counts chess as still being a sport (It was an IBM
->mainframe that
->beat Kasparov)!
Alrighty.  Shows what I know about computers..  delete the word "personal"
from my statement.  Does it stand now?
->Quite frankly I agree that chess is not a sport but your criteria
->is pretty dodgy.
That's because it was originally intended to be a bit of a joke.  If I ever
really wanted to get into a serious discussion about what makes a sport a
sport, I'd stay out of the computer world almost entirely.  But I really,
really don't want to talk about it. 
->If we were to use your criteria then one moment we would have a
->number of competitive games being sports then all of a sudden when
->computer power gets strong enough suddenly they are not sports.
->Real logic that!
No..  "If a stationary IBM computer can beat the world's best human at it, it
is not a sport."  No mention of the event in question being a sport if a comp
*can't* beat the world's best.
->Furthermore, who developed the computers? Wasn't it humans?
Leave me alone!!  And this is off-topic :)
-*- TurboEDIT v1.60a+ [MSP96]
--- Ezycom V1.48g0 01fa0167
---------------