The "purpose" of Arts has been discussed for centuries. There have been different views, but the notion of enriching our lives, making them more joyous and beautiful has been a constant. Chess is not much different.

And let's not forget the scientific aspect of it. Intellectual challenge, research, discovery, testing, application.

Of course there is a sporting element, too. The thrill of competition, inherent in heman beings.

By the way, many words in English have multiple related meanings. http://dictionary.reference.com/sea...

One definition of genius: "A strong natural talent, aptitude, or inclination." Can you guys all accept this definition (you actually have no choice, it's what the word means) and stop arguing?

Your definition would certainly narrow down the field to the extreme, and that is valid, too.

<moving chess pieces on an 8x8 board a few hours...>. It is more a matter of a lifetime of hard work: study, research and discovery. The "few hours" now and then, are, of course, just a practical outlet to the above.

Funny, in a way Steinitz reminds me of Archimedes, not in terms of application of the results of their work, but as far as the mental/intellectual process is concerned.

Anyway, as always it is a pleasure and a privilege to talk to You. You sure know how to keep people on their toes :)

I told you already that you had no choice, the meaning of genius has already been decided upon before we were even born. But if you want more definitions:

"-Extraordinary intellectual and creative power.

-A person of extraordinary intellect and talent."

Bobby Fischer was smart, creative, and talented. So were many artists. You might be too, so that would make you a genius in your field (only if you are extraordinary though, everyone who's simply 'good' at their jobs don't qualify). The point is that the word genius doesn't care what field it's being applied to.

Chess does entertain, but so does great works of art or a classical symphony, no? Art itself entertains.

And Chess is different from almost all other types of sports since it is purely mental. Again, I posit to you, do you see Kasparov benching 400lbs to lift a Bishop to give check? Answer-- No, you do not.

Now, one game that does have some contentious semblance to Chess is the recent popularity of Poker. Poker is purely mental as well, except it's subtleties and depth are very shallow when juxtaposed with the intricasies of chess, and the outcome is a result of other variants such as 1)luck and 2)Several other player's weakness.

Chess, on the other hand, relies purely on logic and nothing else. It is on the same level as a mathematical equation or a chemistry problem because you cannot change the laws and condition of a successful equation. In other sports, a team might undeservedly win by an outside force, i. e. the referee who gets a wrong call. In chess, however, this rarely happens (a touch move, perhaps) but the logic of chess is infallible. You cannot cheat a chess board into giving you a win because the rules are grounded on precise terms that no outside force can contradict. For example, a referee cannot oversee the fact that a Bishop has moved like a Rook would.

Mathematicians win the Fields Medal for their excellency, and numerous scientists win Noble Peace prize for their excellency in the field. Einstein, one of the most renowned logicians, is heavily considered a "genius". So why is Fischer not considered a genius, when his field is pure logic and he has excelled in it all by himself?

If one is in bad physical shape he or she won't be able to play at the highest level for 7 hours through out the tournament; hence, physical shape is very important at top level chess.

One the main topic: Is Fischer a genius?

1. What is a "genius"?
2. What is "intelligence"?
3. Can intelligence be "measured"?
4. What does an I.Q. test actually measure? If we're not even sure what intelligence is, how on earth do we know that some paper and pencil test "measures" it?