Thunder seems like the anger of the gods but it isn't. We've had chess playing programs for a long time now and despite it seeming like thinking is required for them, it isn't.
The principle you're using here isn't a scientific one but magical [1]. Abandoning empiricism and rationality is not a good way to make progress.
It makes sense now to say that temperature is what a thermometer measures. However, before there were good thermometers, people often thought that heat and cold were different things. The meanings of the words we use were influenced by scientific progress.
For thinking, we don't have a good thermometer. There are IQ tests, but they aren't aren't necessarily all that useful for comparing what people do to what machines do. And that's why there are a zillion AI benchmarks - none are entirely satisfactory.
So what does "smart" mean to you? How do you define it in practical sense? What definition should scientists settle on?
Without a proper definition, how do you tell the difference between "seems smart" and "is smart?"
Quibbling over commonly-understood definitions is not a strong argument. If you're genuinely struggling to understand that El Ajedrecista [1] did not meet any definition of thought, then the solution is not to demand that people redefine all terms to accomodate you, but that you consult a dictionary.
You clearly have a working definition, or you wouldn't have been able to declare that tallness isn't thinking; please engage honestly.
That doesn't mean I know whether "smart" should be applied to what AI's do, and I suspect nobody else knows either. This is the sort of thing philosophers debate about, not common sense.
Turing invented the imitation game because he didn't really know either.