Any readers here enjoy the age-old debate that seeks to answer the question, "What is a sport?"
Sports get a lot of attention in our culture and somehow it feels that they hold a higher place in our minds than games do. So, in many cases, people seem to want to elevate their preferred pastime up to the level of a "sport".
Almost every medical study on the topic indicates that our society needs to improve habits around getting more exercise. And sports almost always involve more exercise than games (in fact, it is hard for me to think of a counterexample). So, maybe sports do deserve a more exalted status than games.
A somewhat contrary idea we see in culture is the tendency to view the coach's role, particularly in team sports, as analogous to playing chess. Oh, those poor coaches... the players get to play a sport while the coaches are relegated to playing a mere game. On the other hand, as games go, chess is a particularly respected one.
As a hockey coach, I have always been a little bit weird in this regard. I recoil at the idea that I, as a game-managing hockey coach, am playing chess against the other team's coach. It doesn't feel right to me.
A metaphor for how hockey coaches often view an impending competition (as a battle of wits with the other coach)
Why not?
It comes down to control. I have played a little bit of chess. When I do, it feels to me like I am very much in control of the state of the game as far as my pieces are concerned. I am not very good, so I find myself getting pushed around by the opponent. But that is something I could control if only I was a better chess player.
On the other hand, when coaching hockey I have a tiny bit of control. The puck drops out there and as the play develops, the players at times wind up playing their own little chess games in each of the situations in which they must try to outmaneuver an opponent or two. What influence do I have over those?
In the moment? None.
The truth is, my past self can have had some influence over all of those (based on how I helped those players prepare for those situations). But my current self as I observe from the bench? Helpless.
Yes, the coach can influence player morale and put players in positions to succeed or not with their lineup decisions. And, here and there, they can implement special set plays. They have some influence. But, most of the time, by far, the players are moving the needle. Not the coach.
So, I have never felt like I was mentally facing off against the other coach as players do in chess. Instead, I felt like these moments were opportunities for my past self to show off (or faceplant).
How so? As a hockey coach, I feel more like I am the chess piece manufacturer. Well, actually, that isn't quite right. If I was manufacturing deluxe chess pieces, a super high-quality queen I might produce would have no more power in a chess game than a piece of mulch that I found in a pile next to the output end of a woodchipper. If I subsequently deemed some misshapen piece of wood a "queen" and used it in chess, it would fill that role fine. Sure, the high-quality piece will probably be more satisfying for the players to play with, but it will have no more potential influence on the outcome of the game.
A source for aesthetically displeasing, yet functional, chess pieces?
It's more as if one's efforts as a coach accumulate to give you points that you can then use to give your chess pieces special powers. The fantasy for coaches like this (or maybe it's just me) is that at the beginning of the season they have a normal chess set, but then through their efforts, by mid-season, they are all of a sudden showing up to a chess match with 6 queens. That is the sort of hockey coaching situation I want to be in.
I guess that makes me a skills coach (though in my view the project of "making better chess pieces" certainly spills over into attempting to develop better decision making as well). And, guess what, it turns out that, at this point in my hockey coaching career, that is the label I give myself.
But, what strikes me is that so many hockey parents tend to judge developmental-level hockey coaches (something like youth through high school) not based on their ability to improve the "chess pieces", but instead, based on the tiny bit of control they have in the game management phase of the process. Don't get me wrong, you hear all the time about how development is the most important thing. But, the majority of complaints I hear are about game management mistakes. The evidence indicates that is where the focus is.
And, you know what, most hockey coaches seem to see it the same way. In my opinion they see themselves as chess players on the bench first. This doesn't make much sense to me.
But, hey, at a certain point, as hockey players, we don't get to play significant hockey games anymore. We gotta get our competitive fix somehow and believing that coaches on the bench have a large influence on game outcome is a way for former players to feel that rush.
Ok, maybe it does make some sense.