Do you consider chess to be a sport?

Weight lifting still requires physical conditioning (even if it's anaerobic as opposed to aerobic) to be good at, first off.
Aside from that, kingpatzer qualified what he said with the word if. Meaning if you accept his assumptions about what qualifies as a sport "...then obviously chess does not qualify."

But more importantly, why do people ask these kinds of questions about whether or not chess is a sport or whether it's a game/logic/art/etc? I suppose they make for (pseudo-) interesting philosophical discussions, but does it really matter from a practical standpoint where chess stands "objectively", one way or the other?

no, i don't think chess is a sport.  Saying chess is a sport loosens the definition of sport too much.

Physical conditioning is not only aerobic.

Ok, words have meaning. And?

If you're trying to say that it's important to firmly clarify chess as being sport or non-sport for the sake of not using sloppy language (as in avoiding the "War is Peace" kind of Orwellian sloppiness), then in theory, I agree with you.
In practice, words and language in general can never have the same rigorous exactitude that tend to typify (particularly) mathematics. Yes, it's important not to be sloppy with words. On the other hand, there are practical limits to how precisely you can express meaning via language. And really, how much distortion in thought are you going to cause people based on whether or not you decide to call chess a sport?

I would say there is no practical limit to how one can express themselves with language. The only caveat is there are many on this site whose native tongue is not English.

I'm not even saying there are limits to expression (though it's possible there are), so much as I'm arguing there are limits to how precisely you can be interpreted by others. Words aren't integer values like 4 and 5 where they have precise, clear cut meanings/values that everyone knows and understands. For example, your understanding of the word "melancholy" probably has a slightly different interpretation/value/connotation than my understanding of it, even if we both basically understand what the word means.

And true enough about the English native tongue bit, although I don't see how that plays much into the original question about chess being/not being a sport.

I didn't respond to the op's question in that post.

Context matters.

Is there an established definition that notes a requirement of physical activity or a predominance of it? I think the whole question comes from a bias of spectator sports being mostly physical and more watched than other sports.

Chess is a sport. why is poker on a sports channel like ESPN???

Yeah, sloppy language results in sloppy thinking. I get it. I thought I made it clear that I understood that with the "War is Peace" example, but I guess not. Let's hope we're both clear on this now.

1.) Even if a "sport" has traditionally been defined as some 'physical activity' (which arguably chess could still qualify as, but let's assume for now that it doesn't), this rigid approach to defining terms ignores the fact that word meanings change/evolve over time as our understanding of the universe changes. There aren't many who still talk about having a "gay old time" anymore, for example, because even though it's still technically acceptable to speak this way, the zeitgeist of the word "gay" is very different from what it was a few decades ago? Why?

Who knows? All that matters for our purposes is that it has changed over time. So even if you're right about the definition of the word "sport" and how it must encompass some type of 'physical activity' (and I'm frankly not sure that you are, but a trip to Merriam-Webster should settle this), it doesn't imply that it can never evolve. Words are not integer values like 83 and 5 that are absolute and precise. On the contrary, they are inexact (to one extent or another) and one person's understanding of a word isn't going to be precisely the same as someone else's. This is the whole basis for word meaning evolution, in fact.

2.) The question of whether chess is a sport or not is primarily a philosophical one. Meaning even if chess is objectively (however you want to define "objective") not a sport, yet we mistakenly call it one, you have to ask yourself what the actual practical ramifications would be.
We corrupt peoples' understanding of what a sport is? Ok, distortion in thinking isn't good, but if we accept that word meanings aren't precise the way that integer arithmetic is (and I hope I've convinced you of this), then some amount of thought distortion will be inevitable anyway. Yes, let's try to minimize that distortion. But let's also be realistic and acknowledge that there are practical limits to not thought distorting.

I take it you have some background in law (why else would you mention the Commerce Clause?). I'm not a lawyer myself, but I am well aware of how politicains/lawyers routinely do this kind of obfuscation for (typically) selfish, political gain: crafting bills where a non-road is categorized as a road, non-commerce becomes commerce, etc. Not everyone else (e.g. scientists) is motivated to do this kind of thing, however.

That would logically follow I guess, sure. John Nunn won an athletic award for his chess playing back in the 1980s I think it was (he writes a blurb about it in his 'Best Games' book), so why not?

I know that sounds ridiculous to say, given Finegold's picture (he's even more out-of-shape-looking than I thought he was in real life...wow).

yes i do

If chess is a sport then any competition is a sport lol

Not anymore. Google image the top 20 or 30 players in the world.

If chess is a sport then you can define anything as a sport, which is pointless. Warhammer, Magic the Gathering are played on a high level and require quite a bit of thinking, they are now sports?

People associate "sports" with physical activity. You all know it. It's simple.

In a Korchnoi v. Petrosian match, they were kicking each other under the table. That's physical. :P

I have played more sports than most of you combined, and I say chess is a sport. There everythings settled.

I would assume that you consider the Oxford English Dictionary to be "reputable?" 

If so, you'll find under "Sport" the following:

noun

• [mass noun] dated entertainment; fun:
• archaic a source of amusement or entertainment:

 There are 2 definitions that fit. 

You'll note that one is "dated" and the other "archaic." 

How many times do you have to be wrong in one paragraph before you realize you have no idea what you're talking about? 

There isn't an lexicographer in the world who would have a problem with refering to chess as a "sport." They might say "it's not the normative usage," but it is a perfectly understandable usage that successfully conveys an intended meaning and therefore it's a fitting use of the word. 
 

all very good points!

hey abeyer!!! im also in Peru!!