>Is that intelligent?

huh? In the comment above you said you would argue that it is. So is that not your argument?

>I'd call walking/catching/throwing considerably more difficult activities than chess/go, and much closer to intelligence

This is an even bizarre idea. I get that those things are harder to implement in a robot since it requires extremely fine sensors and motor control. But that making it closer to intelligence? That does not make a lot of sense..

Just because we cannot exactly define intelligence does not mean that you can call any arbitrary thing intelligent!