I thought that today I’d go over one of the more unfortunate truths of this game that many other people believe as well. For those of you who might not know, chess was incredibly popular back in the 20th century especially with the rise of an American legend, Bobby Fisher. During the Cold War, it was often Russian grandmasters beating everyone else to the ground in the chess community. Barely anyone could challenge their top grandmasters and even if you were able to beat one of them, the USSR had about 1000 more waiting. To a lot of Americans, it was a confidence booster to be able to an American systematically demolish every Soviet player out there (one interesting thing to keep in mind is that Fisher played all these chess matches in the USSR and against Soviet grandmasters despite all the rising tensions during his time period). There ended up being a point where Fisher was one of the most popular people alive. Now, however, competitive chess is, for the most part, forgotten.
This popularity ended up declining exponentially after two chess matches in 1996 and 1997 involving the same two players: Garry Kasparov and a supercomputer named Deep Blue. In the first two games of each match, both Kasparov and Deep Blue had won one game, making the next few games after that even more suspenseful to the audience. Now picture yourself as one of the spectators who for some reason decided to watch a human and a computer think for several hours. You can’t possibly comprehend what’s going on. After all, this is one of the most respected and skillful chess players out there playing against a freaking computer. So you just wait to see one of them possibly make a mistake obvious enough for you to notice or more importantly, for them to finish so you can see the result. And then after six hours, you find out that the result was a draw. “Well shit. Maybe tomorrow then.” And you come back tomorrow, wait for another six hours and realize that they drew again. If you’re watching in 1996, then you’ll come back for a third day to see Kasparov offer a draw after merely 23 moves (Deep Blue declined and ended up losing). If it’s 1997, you’d see them draw for the third time in a row. Obviously chess is not a spectator sport. In order for most people to be able to spectate the game without becoming bored, they often need to be avid chess players themselves who are dedicated to the game. Normal people often find no interest in these matches and often turn to the much more fast paced alternatives such as an actual sport, leading to a massive drop in interest in the past few years.
Another reason for the decline of chess is actually tied in with the exact same event. In 1996, Kasparov beat Deep Blue with a record of 4-2. However, in 1997, Deep Blue won with a score of 3.5-2.5. This was the first instance of a computer being able to beat a world renowned chess player. And with this, the strength of computers skyrocketed. What this means for players is that every second, chess is marginally closer to being solved. As computers get stronger, the statistically best moves will be found and eventually we’ll most likely discover a game where white and black play perfectly. For the first few moves in the opening stage of the game, the best moves have already been found and are already compiled in databases. The problem I find with these databases is the fact that they are simply moves. In order to learn the opening, all you have to do is memorize what the computer says we should do, and that wasn’t the inherent purpose of chess. As computers get stronger, the number of moves humans will need to memorize will increase, and eventually how good you are at chess is going to become increasingly dependent on how many moves you can memorize. That isn’t the reason why I learned how to play chess and is the reason why I have shied away from competitive chess in the last few years. Many other players including Bobby Fisher share this opinion and is the reason why Chess 960 or Fisher Random (the game mode I described several weeks ago) exist, to counter the memorization aspect of chess.
Unfortunately, computers are going to keep on improving, and there’s nothing to do about the memorization aspect of chess. The spectator aspect of the game also will most likely not be going anywhere without changing the inherent nature of the game. Some still like to argue that chess isn’t dying, claiming that the spectator aspect doesn’t really matter and that the memorization involved with still can’t compare with the skill needed to be innovative and find solutions in unique positions. However, I feel like the importance of memorizing has risen exponentially and the affect it has had on competitive chess games is big enough that I feel like it’s affecting the game for the worse. I’d be interested to hear your thoughts and opinions on this matter considering how most people seem to be fine with the whole computer situation and spectator aspect.
Is there any way to combat this shift to memorizing more and more moves. It seems that it would discourage even more people from wanting to learn the game if they knew that it would mean that much more memorization.
I think one of the major reasons chess is declining in popularity is that it doesn’t reap the instant gratification our generation has become accustomed to. As you described, chess is a (for lack of a better word) “thinky” game, with matches lasting hours or, in some cases, days. While some people may find the commitment in and of itself thrilling, spectators and participants today would rather be a part of something where you can move up to the next level or win easily. Furthermore, as you touched upon, creative thinking isn’t as highly valued now as it was in previous centuries. Of course, I, like you, still take pleasure in being able to assess a situation and approach it uniquely, balancing potential outcomes, weighing my options, and proceeding intelligently; however, we seem to be the rarity in this fast-paced world. So, although I’m not a chess player, I think the appeal of chess-like games, techniques, and practices will continue to hold its appeal, albeit with a smaller subset of people than before.
I agree with your contentions, Jack. I think engines are killing the game because super-GMs are emulating the narrow opening repertoire of engines. When AlphaZero was teaching itself the game it slowly but surely gave up defenses that gave up space and … badda bing badda boom … no more Frenches, Caro-Kanns, King’s Indians, and so on. The game is now MUCH narrower. Now at elite levels it seems like every darned game is a Ruy Lopez or a Queen’s Gambit.
Yes, we’ll still have tournaments and champions but when you look at the GM commentary of championship games they all refer to AlphaZero’s or Stockfish’s evaluation of each position. Alpha’s estimated Elo rating is about 3400 while the best human, Magnus Carlsen, is about 2850. To Alpha or even Stockfish, Carlsen is so much dust to be flecked off of its silicon jacket. I think chess died after the Kasparov era.
Very few niggers p,any chess because it is a game that thrives on civility and intelligence.
So in your brillant evaluations, what board game cannot be played by a computer to the end or demise or death as you call it? Then they all must be dying…
In today’s politically correct world, everything is under review for potential offensiveness. The most obvious problem is that chess is inherently racist. Black versus white is not something we should be encouraging in a racially tense culture. And, of course, white goes first, which is something I would think is disturbing to people of color. It’s like sitting on the back of the bus. It’s another form of white supremacy. But seriously, despite all the politically correct bad outcome that chess may have, it is the best tool to teach your kids everything – from obvious one like strategic and analitical thinking, to psychological development – a child who realizes that one does not always win but also loses, learns humility and respect for other people. I really can recommend a book, which is very good to teach kids how to play chess, writen by Makism Aksanov (net-bossorg/chess-puzzles-for-kids-by-maksim-aksanov). it’s very easy to teach with all the fun and play, and make with this game a very rich, fantasy world for our kids 🙂
This is ridiculous statement. Chess was invented in India, it has NOTHING to do with race and to imply so just shows how racist you are, not the game.
White goes first because that’s just how it was set up, stop trying to find race in everything.
That’s asinine so I presume you were just using sarcasm to vent. As an old Black lady I sometimes joke about white going first as usual. But it is not offensive that white moves first, nor to any Black player I know of. Chess is simply a fun and challenging game for all who venture into it. One friend said chess players are the dumbest smart people he knows, and I agree. But back to the point, I see chess interest escalating in the school system. Also because of computer memorization it’s easier to become a grandmaster for the intellectually gifted than it was before Deep Blue.
The standard chess is dying for sure, however i believe chess can survive for long time if the 960 variant get popular.
this is BS !
human vs human chess is not dying.
who gives a shit about playing versus a computer ?
The fact that computers are better than humans means that people will start using only one type of opening because it is the best one. This makes the game narrower and memorisation becomes a bigger factor making the game more boring.
The recent sales of chess sets are logarithmic linked to the Queens Gambit movie. I decided to play again on chess.com and lichess to enjoy the challenges while the pandemic forces me to stay at home. The greatest satisfaction is that I have improved my scores doing puzzles and won a few games playing others. My age is 84 and the ability to focus both strategically and tactically has allowed better cognitive ability, attention and memory, as well as self esteem. As an inactive licensed psychologist, I would strongly advise seniors to play online. When the pandemic ends, I am going to join the Mechanics Institute in San Francisco.
It’s funny because then chess got really really popular a few years after this was written
Computer cant train a good chess student. You still need proffessional trainer.
You said chess is dying. It is kind of correct, but I disagree with you. Chess may die one day, but not in close future. In this comment I will explain that.
First of all, it is too hard to memorize the chess. let’s assume that you are playing caro-kann against your opponent. What will likely happen is although the french opening is a bad opening because it gives lots of place to your opponent and your white bishop can’t go out, one of you will play a move, which isn’t the best move and you will face with a whole another position.
Second, because of the game is equal but white is better, in some cases white tries to beat black and in such games, both sides are likely to make mistakes. That matches are really exciting to watch:)
Third thing, creative thinking is important because since you can’t memorize the whole chess, in somer positions, you will be have to find creative ideas in order to break your opponent’s defense or have defend yourself.
And last, if you are watching the chess tournaments held by chess 24, even the grandmasters make huge mistakes in the game. While it2s the case, it is too early to say “chess is dying”.
To conclude, chess is still alive and will live for a long time. It is certain that the chess will be solved one day, like a puzzle, but now, it is a really good game. One last thing. go watch gotham chess. If you know chess a bit, you will love chess.
It is totally possible that soon someone could build a robot who can run faster, throw further, or play football better than any human bring. Would this mean athletics/football are dead as a sport? Of course not. Human vs human competitive chess will always be around, who cares if it can attract a big TV audience? And the idea of chess being ‘solved’ has been debunked already always far too many variations and possibilities. Studying opening repertoires is not about memorisation but understanding, i would say people’s obsession with memorising opening lines is killing chess more than computers
Please find a first grade teacher and learn to be a person, you are behaving like a drug addict.