That chess is unrecognised as a sport nor supported by governments (in Australia) is a common lament amongst Aussie chess lovers. The situation here is markedly different to that of my beloved Philippines where chess enjoys funding from the PSC (Philippines Sports Commission) .
Yet is chess really deserving of that recognition and support? I have in mind the vexed issue of "arranged draws". Let me just suggest for a moment that these arrangements fly in the face of "sporting contests".
The recent St George Open, which I mentioned in an earlier entry, featured exactly this kind of arrangements. According to some experienced opinions, those arrangements constituted games of chess. How can this be so?
Consider this: say a player already has an unassailable lead in the tournament going into the last 2 rounds. He's feeling a bit lazy. Is it acceptable for him to simply arrange draws with his last 2 opponents? To my mind this is like Sir Alex Ferguson and Arsene Wenger agreeing not to bother turning up to a league match because Arsenal's already stitched up the title 2 weekends ago.
So you see, chess is hypocritical. For it to be considered a sport, "games" must be decided in the appropriate sporting arena. Over the board.