Chess is a magnificent game. It does assume some principles for a good game, namely balance, which is necessary unless you want people to cry "luck" when you beat them. It doesn't allow that - this is why it's better than most video games. The title "game of life" can be misleading, but I think you're reading into it in an unintended fashion. Philosophies based on chess are about contest and how one approaches a challenge, not how "fair" life is.
Yes, the opponents are balanced against you. No one would be stupid enough to base real life military strategy on a game as unrealistic as chess. However, this is what you missed: it was never made for that.
Chess is about prediction. If you can see every possible move at any given time for several turns ahead, and your opponent is one turn behind you, you will trounce them. This idea, called the "ply", is what makes chess a good exercise for the part of your brain that works logic, reason and strategy. Read about Gary Kasparov's legendary match with Deep Blue, or the Immortal Game, both of which have excellent articles on Wikipedia. See the ply in the hands of the master player and you'll understand why it's such an interesting game.
Being able to predict the best moves is how to win. Being able to gambit cleverly, or pull off advanced moves like fully protecting a pawn's advance from the King taking it with clever protection moves, or distracting someone with a pawn upgrade to take their piece and checkmate, are what make chess very interesting to the amateur. This is the aspect of strategy that really defines chess as a brilliant game. Most of these moves do happen later in the game, and it takes some professionalism or extra cleverness to pull them off, so newbies often miss the point of it.
And I think you might have made a similar mistake. Don't let comparison to real life ruin a game for you.
