That's not a good definition. In all games you interact with your opponent. Whether we call it "killing their units" or "taking the tile they wanted", is just cosmetic. Even in a game like Yahtzee, a strategy which takes into account what the opponent does will trounce a strategy which just tries to maximize score.
It's true that modern (that is, since 1994 or so) European games try to avoid "politics", e.g. individual dealmaking between players, or players having free choice over which other player to reward or hinder. European reviewers (and, say, SdJ judges) will typically consider it poor design if
1. Who wins can be decided by who gets targeted
2. Players don't get to play to the end (I.e. get eliminated)
3. Your win status can be certain and obvious long before the game is actually over.
But there is still plenty of room for that in older European games like Catan (1995)
What isn't, the text you are replying to, or the linked definition in that text?
The linked definition includes your point that "European reviewers will consider it poor design if ... players don't get to play to the end" for example, so your listing it doesn't work as a criticism of the definition.
The BGG definition seems quite comprehensive, and definitely not just "games you interact with your opponent".
From BGG:
Eurogames (or alternatively, Designer Board Games or German-Style Board Games) are a classification of board games that are very popular on Board Game Geek (BGG). Though not all eurogames are European and not all of them are board games, they share a set of similar characteristics. A game need not fit ALL the criteria to be considered a Eurogame.
Most Eurogames share the following elements:
- Player conflict is indirect and usually involves competition over resources or points. Combat is extremely rare.
- Players are never eliminated from the game (All players are still playing when the game ends.)
- There is very little randomness or luck. Randomness that is there is mitigated by having the player decide what to do after a random event happens rather than before. Dice are rare, but not unheard of, in a Euro.
- The Designer of the game is listed on the game's box cover. Though this is not particular to Euros, the Eurogame movement seems to have started this trend. This is why some gamers and designers call this genre of games Designer Games.
- Much attention is paid to the artwork and components. Plastic and metal are rare, more often pieces are made of wood.
- Eurogames have a definite theme, however, the theme most often has very little to do with the gameplay. The focus instead is on the mechanics; for example, a game about space may play the same as a game about ancient Rome.
- Eurogames are concerned with getting the most strategy from the least or minimal mechanics.
- Eurogames typically have multiple viable paths to scoring points or securing the win condition.
- Eurogames generally correspond to the BGG subdomain "Strategy".
Examples of Eurogames: CATAN, Puerto Rico, Carcassonne, Tigris & Euphrates, Caylus, Power Grid, Ra, El Grande, Five Tribes
// As owner of the listed example games, I find the linked definition significantly superior.
I'm not a fan of BGG, and their definition is questionable in its own ways (little randomness is wrong) but either way I was reacting to the "interaction" part in the post I was replying to. All good games are interactive, but some people seem to miss it if the theme is wrong.
It's true that modern (that is, since 1994 or so) European games try to avoid "politics", e.g. individual dealmaking between players, or players having free choice over which other player to reward or hinder. European reviewers (and, say, SdJ judges) will typically consider it poor design if
1. Who wins can be decided by who gets targeted
2. Players don't get to play to the end (I.e. get eliminated)
3. Your win status can be certain and obvious long before the game is actually over.
But there is still plenty of room for that in older European games like Catan (1995)