Chess isn't a sport

So, your idea is that you get to decide my definition of the word or that my definition is not old enough to qualify.

I disagree.

I grew up thinking that sports involved physical activity.

But, yes, English is a living language. It is not set in stone, and it is still changing and evolving. I realize that many now like a broader definition. Personally, I do not. I'm allowed to have a definition of sport that is different than yours. You're allowed to have a definition different than mine.

À chacun le sien.

All reputable dictionaries? I'd be curious as to your vetting process for this. In any event, for decades Merriam-Webster has listed "a source of diversion: recreation" (or variations thereof, that's the current listing) as the first definition of a sport.

You continue to make things up.

I'm not impressed.

When defining words, or using definitions, it's important to consider context. If we are describing current events, current situations, we have to use current definitions.

Currently chess is not a sport, because currently sports are defined as mainly having physical skill components. But that doesn't mean it will always be that way. In the future, sports could include things like tic tac toe, watching TV, sleeping, or chess. The definition could remove the physical skill part and simply include any and all competitions. We could even eliminate that. We could call any thing, or any event, any human takes part in a sport. Like being in a coma. If you are doing it, it's a sport.

Who decides the current definition? Would you say majority consensus, at least in most cases?

You confuse the issue by referring to variant definitions. Yes, "sport" can mean:

1. a : to amuse oneself

2. to engage in a sport

3 a : to mock or ridicule something b : to speak or act in jest : trifle

But this is beside the point. When used to describe an activity, the common definition is of an activity requiring physical exertion and physical skill in a competitive exercise, usually for purposes of entertainment.

But, again, a broader definition is possible.

No one gets to decide that for other people.

I'm not sure why this seems so important.

It's interesting to me But not important.

Chess is exactly what it is, whatever we call it.

Chess will never have mass appeal to such an extent that it is a viable ongoing venture worth pursuing from a business standpoint. I'd like to be wrong about that. However, it'd help if players at least showed enthusiasm like this rather than being boring types.

It is not a great idea to have a private definition for any word, correct.

But the definition use is hardly private.

otb not online chess, there are many differences

No, that's the first definition given for the word sport used as a noun. Isn't the question, "is chess a sport?" the same as the question, "does chess fall under the definition of the noun sport?"

In another thread, I agreed that chess deserves more respect, and that is sometimes, I think, an underlying issue.

The definition is already broader. The most common definition in today’s usage supports you, and that’s what you’ll find in short, one-volume dictionaries. Google, too, will lead you only to this truncated definition.

That common definition is incomplete and the word “traditional” is falsely applied in your claim.

We generally rely on dictionaries for that. For example, you get a traffic citation for going 78mph in a posted 35mph zone. You go to court and plead your case. The judge looks at the evidence, the definitions of words used in the citation, and is about to rule. But you have an ace up your sleeve. Little does the judge know that you have your OWN definitions.

You tell the judge you were not really driving your car. You were playing a flute, which is not illegal. Because to you, that's the definition. And you were not going 78, you were parked. Because, again, that's your own personal definition.

When everyone has their own personal definition, that's fine. Until you are settling a dispute. At that point we have to have a way to agree on the meaning of words currently being used. For that, we rely on the dictionary.

Of course he’s wrong. The OED lists half a dozen definitions in common usage today that are ignored bu the loudest voices in this thread. It also lists the traditional definition, which you mentioned, but indicates that it is now archaic (that is, no longer in common usage as a noun). Of course, terms like sportsmanship are grounded in that archaic use of the term.

This sounds like a refutation of what I've said but is not.

It is true that a broader definition exists. It is not true that there is a consensus that this broader definition is the "correct" one, witness this very thread.

Why does this seem important?

This is an outright lie.

It is quite clear that you hate poetry. Your views on language reveal that.

What an odd thing to say.

You're upset and resorting to a personal attack.