400+ comments and yet only a dozen or so of them actually address the point of the issue, which the OP tried to emphasize: whether or not chess is a sport is, ultimately, a semantic debate. It doesn't matter, it's a waste of time arguing one way or the other. It's a categorization issue, where the criteria are ambiguously defined (or defined in more than one possible way).
The debate should be ended not because we can determine that chess is a sport or not, but because the debate is inherently meaningless.

I thought chess was a game until I entered a tournament about a week after playing in competitive ice hockey. After the hockey game, I drove home still high on adrenaline. It took an hour or two to fall asleep. The competition was insane.
A week later was the chess tournament. After the chess games I could barely drive home. I was dizzy, and feeling just shot. The exhaustion was deep and thoroughly about me. I needed all the next day just to recover.
Chess placed serious demands upon my body, as did ice hockey.
After that tournament, chess was always a sport and a damned tough sport at that! I've never seen it any other way since.