Is it really so farfetched to want chess to become an Olympic sport?
One commonly asserted problem with the modern games (well, "common" in the sense that both my pal Ken and I are bothered by it) is that too many of the sports have elements that are subjective. For instance, gymnastics and its variants require judging to get any score at all, while even such sports as basketball and baseball are somewhat subjective in that they require human judgment (and thereby invite human bias). I judge these sports to be unworthy of the Olympics (but that is only my opinion).
Many of the track and field events are better in this regard. One can look at persistent evidence to determine who stepped over a foul line, who jumped a starting gun, who crossed the finish line first. If a high bar is knocked down, it doesn't matter how much style with which it was upset. If the bar conks you on the head, well, that is your reward for missing the jump.
By this criteria, chess is a nearly perfect game. There are few ambiguities in the rules, games are easily reproducible to verify correctness, and the players referee the game themselves. The only area I can see for dispute is the clock. Similar comments apply to checkers.
Now, maybe watching two people (no need for separate genders here, either!) play chess, even lightning chess, is not your idea of excitement. But if I hear one more announcer talk about an athlete getting preferential treatment because they've "paid their dues" -- well, I haven't actually heard that this time around because I have watched so little of the games, but it's just not right.
You can respond to my ranting here.
United we stand, divided we rant.