No. Chess is not a sport for the purposes of this site. This was established pretty decisively on this meta question.
Chess is a board game. And as such questions about it belong on Board & Card Games.
Chess Boxing is on topic though the chess side of it is should be asked on B&CG rather than here because we don't have chess experts here. The ...
I would say they are on-topic as a general subject; the example list of questions which are on-topic here (8 years old now, but I don't believe the consensus has significantly changed) includes "broadcasting" and two questions specifically about commentary.
Usual disclaimer here: being on-topic as a general subject does not mean that all questions ...
You can name it a fandom question, but even if the question will be about the statistical aspect of the curse, essentially, it will be looking for:
Which games Mick Jagger has attended
Which team Mick Jagger was supporting in these particular games?
And these 2 questions don't really lie within our scope. I think it's off-topic.
I skipped that close review post, because I was having second thoughts, only to realize this meta post afterwards.
What strikes me is that people find the question too broad, but fail to edit the question. I thought the request itself was pretty clear, but with too much text.
I reviewed the question (edited) and in this state, I find the question Sports ...
Personally, I'm not too interested in these trivia style questions.
However, there is clearly an interest in them from our community of users.
Stack Exchange communities do in general have a fairly large amount of discretion in order to define what is "on topic" for their community, even if the same sort of question would be off-topic on a "typical"...
These questions are interesting. I didn't know what the Gagarin Cup is (I could have made reasonable guesses, and they were close in this case) but now I do.
These questions are niche. The fact that it takes more than viewing the first page of Google is not a reasonable argument against them; in fact, it's a good reason to have them on Stack Exchange.
My view would be that this kind of question would still be off-topic. I personally think that the use of data science to improve performance in fantasy sports leagues is an interesting subject - but that doesn't mean it is on-topic here, as the community had a pretty strong consensus that fantasy sports are off-topic.
While it's true that there isn't a ...
In my opinion (which matters quite a lot as it's my answer - we're a lot more tolerant of radical edits to questions than to answers), I was happy with the example that's there. In particular, as far as I can see from the clip you've linked to, I don't see the player receive a second yellow card, only a red.
(And for what it's worth, I'm not a moderator).
Counter point: Does a bolder line need to be drawn between what is vs. not a sport?
One thought: If it 'feels' like a sport, and there's not a more appropriate SE site to ask it on, why not ask it here?
Any list of 'official sports' is going to suffer the same ambiguity we're talking about here.
Seems to me, like you said, this it too broad. Not only that, but there are probably official channels that should be referenced when learning "how-to" that are maintained by governing bodies and I'd rather not be handing out advice or answers that could become outdated when the official "how-to" changes.