In sports, what exactly do gender divisions accomplish? Why shouldn't women simply compete with men?

I have a question in a very sorely neglected area of philosophy: that of chess! What does it mean for a move to be the "best"? Does it mean 1) It is the move that leads to the most winning variations? 2) It is the move that will most likely cause one's specific opponent to collapse? 3) The move that initiates or executes a plan of action that the player is most comfortable with? Or something else entirely?

The early philosophers were much involved with sport, in particular Aristotle who used the Olympic games as metaphor for society. Why does sport feature little, if at all, in modern philosophy? From John L.

Why are performance-enhancing drugs seen negatively for athletes, but no problem for musicians? Why do we worship The Beatles (big-time drug takers and their creativity amplified substantially through drug use) and attack Ben Johnson?

Do you think that it is correct to teach physical education in separate-sex classes? Isn't this just keeping the sexist divide between girls and boys, where boys say girls cannot play sport?

College sport is big business, and generates a tremendous amount of revenue. Should the player receive some share of that money?

Do games rest on an unresolvable contradiction? On the one hand, they are social affairs, designed to unite people. In chess clubs, for example, people of all ages, races, creeds, etc., come together and enjoy each other's company. On the other hand, games are competitive affairs, appealing to our most raw and neanderthalic impulses to clobber our enemies. To become good we must prey on and exploit every weakness of the opponent, and to do this we must make him the enemy, else we won't be motivated.

In many sporting competitions (and other types of competition) people will pray to God for help. Would it be fair to call such help cheating if it were granted? Is it ethical to even ask for what would be an unfair advantage over an opposing side in what should be a purely human competition? The critics of performance enhancing drugs seem to say nothing on this issue.

Aaron Meskin provided this as part of his response to a question about performance enhancing drugs: "...But there might be other sorts of reasons. Professional athletes are entertainers, and one of the things we value in entertainment is the manifestation of human skill at a very high level. Sport and other forms of entertainment are like art in that way. The use of performance enhancing drugs tends to undercut our sense that sport is valuable and enjoyable because it allows us to experience high levels of skill and human achievement." I think this is a reason IN SUPPORT of performance enhancing drugs! There are individuals who are biologically high on these same hormones, who no doubt enjoy enhanced performance over those who are naturally lower on these same hormones. Why not level the "playing field"? We would see enhanced performance from all players, but the highest from those who have perfected their technique. I don't see how use of these drugs "undercuts" our appreciation of sports. I fully...

Is it fair and reasonable to say that one sport is more difficult than another? Sure football may be more athletic than golf, but does the ladder require more mental strength? Is it possible to rank the difficulty of sports?