But wait, I am no expert either, but whether of not the start position
is fair appears to me to be an issue of fairness, not whether or not
it is an abstract strategy game. If you have to use "abstract
strategy" and it is a game, it is an abstract strategy game, whether
or not the start arrays were fair is a different issue.

The only caveat I can see is that the argument is being made that if
you know it is unfair, then you have some concrete way to win, and you
don't have to use abstract strategy. In that case, chess, since you
know whether or not certain positions can be won or lost (whether
through Fool's mate or Nalimov) isn't either.

I'll stay away from the debate. It's the question that drives me, Neo,
not the answer.