Is chess a sport? Ending the debate

People will supervise their own interpretation of 'sport'.
Yes.  Its a general term.
Try considering what would have happened if people had never chosen to depart from the currently most common or recommended usage -
languages and alphabets might be - 100,000 years back ?

Extremely demanding physically.

Why do you think there are so many languages?

I don't know about how physically demanding it is, but it certainly takes physical skill to drive a car, let alone fast with other people trying to pass you. Plus it seems like every time they get out of the car after the race is over they are covered in sweat. 

I don't like driving fast but there was one exception near town here where an officer said he would give me a police escort home. I said (joking of course) that he probably couldn't keep up with me. He said lets see. We don't have the fastest car, but it does have a v12 engine and it's still pretty fast. I only got to 120 (for a brief second) but that's still really fast for me (and he had no problem keeping up). 

It was demanding, and definitely in a different way than chess is. 

Is correcting people's grammar a sport? After all, it may be necessary to run away from everybody afterwards!

this really shouldnt be very difficult to understand. sports require a physical skill. auto racing requires a physical skill, ergo it is a sport. hunting requires a physical skill (although it does not require walking, as you imply) ergo, it is a sport. golf, horseback riding, luge, archery, frisbee golf, bowling, lawn darts, cornhole, even esports all require a physical skill. ergo they are all sports. does chess require a physical skill? no it does not. ergo chess is not a sport.

With people who think that horseriding and archery aren't phsyical skills and sports in the fullest sense, sensible discussion becomes a little problematic.

Are you arguing by agreeing?
Want to ask me why I think Australia is in the southern hemisphere?
Should I ask you such questions?

Again - if people had constantly chosen their usage rigidly - based on recommended or common usage of many centuries ago - then how would languages have developed?  We'd still be at 100,000 years ago - language-wise.  Or rather:  language-stupid.
Language is there to serve us - including as individuals.
Not us to serve it.  

Makes the point well.
Individuals choose as to how to use language to serve them.
Does it always happen that way?  No.  

Is autoracing a sport?  That's a question not an assertion.
The answer could depend on who is asked.
Some might reply - 'No - its a place where people come to see accidents'
Is hunting a sport?  Some might say "Its a mismatch - because animals cannot compete with modern firearms"

Is chess a sport?  Possible replies:
"Sure it is - an obviously organized competition.  Regardless of particular dictionary definitions."
"No - it doesn't directly involve physical effort so it couldn't be a sport"
To each his/her own.  Which is how and why languages developed in the first place.  People continued to adapt language to their needs and wants.  

Does it seem so?

Looks like there'll be no answer to my question.  Perhaps a kind of admission.
More briefly:  How could hunting be a 'sport' given the degree of mismatch between animals and firearms?
Apparently - because some want to see it as such.
Same as those coming to car races to see fatal accidents wanting to see it as a sport too.

How important is the word 'sport' in daily life for most people ?
What is its key usage?
Possibly just to distinguish news about various types of activities from news about politics - world and local events and affairs - business - weather and so on.
"News - sports - weather".   Possibly its main use.

Because a sport doesn't require evenly matched sides, that's how. 

Hunting is a sport (even though the firearm user might have a big advantage) in the same way golf is a sport (even though Tiger at his prime had a big advantage). 

Just because it's mismatched doesn't mean it's not a sport. 

"Just because it's mismatched doesn't mean it's not a sport."
According to how people want to define it.
Tiger Woods had no 'advantage'.  Other players are using the same balls - have access to the same brands of clubs - have to start from the same tee and play the same holes.
Obviously its not 'in the same way' as in hunting.
But you can hold to that if you want. 

Dynamic in chat forums - it goes something like this:
"Want to have a conversation?  Lets do so by playing verbal chess and verbal pingpong too."
But there's also - the actual conversation.

The notion that the hunter has the upper hand due to firepower confuses hunting for harvesting. Hunting is countless hours in the woods looking for prey. Some people hunt many years between harvest of game.

Consider deer. Easy to kill. But, they are nocturnal creatures who must be killed during daylight hours. The finding is the sport. Then, dragging them to the vehicle could be many hours of hard physical labor. There is also some sport in making the shot as clean a kill as possible to minimize the animal’s anguish as it dies.

But animals are no match for hunters with scopes and high-powered rifles.

Why should it be called a 'sport'?
The act of dragging the kill afterwards is hardly sport either -
its work.  Not sport.
Farmers protecting their fields are indulging in 'sport'?  Hardly.
Its work.    
But for people who want to affirm to themselves and others that its 'sport' they will do so.  Maybe to satisfy some kind of psychological need to do so.  

No, the answer is in the historicity. Historically, hunting was a necessity. It was normally undertaken on foot: hence walking, running and probably climbing ... and archery. All physical skills, especially when chasng an animal. If the chasing was done on horseback, again a physical skill. Therefore it isn't a psychological need. It was probably the only "sport" that many people indulged in, either out of need or for pleasure and exercise.

chess is, by definition, a sport.

"Sport pertains to any competitive physical activity [and] or game that aims to use, maintain, or improve physical ability and skills while providing entertainment to participants and, in some cases, entertainment to spectators." (Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sport )

That same article also states that both ASRIF and GAISF (SportAccord) recognize chess as a sport, along with games such as bridge, checkers, go, and xiangqi.

That's ridiculous. "Physical ability". Try to justify it.

When hunting was necessary, it was not sport.