Chess has been around for centuries, it isn't going anywhere. I think it isn't very popular because:
A) It's not socially "accepted" for the most part by the masses
B) It's a difficult game that requires discipline, patience, and dedication
C) You generally have to have a certain level of intelligence to play the game and succeed at it and enjoy it to its fullest. The vast majority of people are pretty dumb, and thus can't appreciate it.
Well. I think Olympics are loosing their value. To watch chess you need to understand some of its basics at least - it mean you must have played it. To watch any of olympics you just need to have tv (or computer) - no activity is needed.
Computer engines evaluating position make chess in part similiar to olympics - you can watch candidates tournament and 'see' who has advance. But to know why you need to think by yourself.
I could say more. But i think only one thing is important - to let people chance to play chess, and they'll decide for themselves if they like it or not.
Found an article Nigel Short wrote this weekend in the Gaurdian, deals with this topic very nicely.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/23/magnus-carlsen-start-chess-renaissance
I'm a senior in High school, and I have been playing chess with the timer and all in school with various of my former and current teachers. But the students that come in and out of the class look upon it as a ridiculous game, even calling it so.
From a spectator point of view, are chess games at all interesting (are they boring to watch in other words) or is chess a game that no one really considers anymore in this age of technology?
Chess. Golf. Getting drunk.
They're all fun to do. No fun to watch somebody else do it.
Nothing to do with the day, or the age. Chess has always been that way. It cannot lose, what it never had. It is what's known as a Niche-market. Has major appeal to a few, little/no appeal to most.
And it will always be that way. Two guys staring at some wooden figures on a checkered board will never have mass appeal.
But what 99% of the world thinks isn't important. The pertinent question is, Do YOU enjoy it?
If so, it has the potential to enrich your life for years to come. That just means you are part of that niche. Enjoy.
Thanks Varelse, I never thought of it that way. Same for everyone else that commented on those premises; I guess chess isn't a spectator game.
You should tell them that since they know nothing about it, they are in no position to judge it either way.
Well the way I see it I should that Chess has never been more popular than it is today. With all the platforms available (Internet, chess computers, chess club, parks ect) Chess is everywhere. Anyone can log online at any time and playchess with an opponent across the sea. That wasn't the case at in the 70' and 80' when you had to find yourself in a chess circle in order to play on a regular basis.
appreciation of chess requires more sublime senses.
still, the american system of getting the adrenaline going ought to be brought into the game.
what's her rating?
When I played chess at clubs in the 80's people were saying the same thing: we aren't getting enough members, especially young members, because of all these computer games that people are spending their time with instead of learning chess.
Chess survived that.
Chess survived WOW, COD, runescape and Skyrim.
Chess is a battle-hardened survivor. Chess will press on. Chess will never surrender. Chess will fight them on the beaches, whereever they might be. Chess will never succumb to the dark abyss of a perverted science.
Great speech!
To appreciate a chess game, one must be able to play chess. To appreciate a football game you just have to have a butt to place on your sofa. This is why chess is not a spectator sport.
Well said.
drahtseil, you are right, Garri is Kasparov's real name.
As you are now ridiculing them. 
Chess has been around for centuries, it isn't going anywhere. I think it isn't very popular because:
A) It's not socially "accepted" for the most part by the masses
B) It's a difficult game that requires discipline, patience, and dedication
C) You generally have to have a certain level of intelligence to play the game and succeed at it and enjoy it to its fullest. The vast majority of people are pretty dumb, and thus can't appreciate it.
lol...wow, is this dumb. 
But lots of games that are complex and difficult have quite a following.
Additionally, I would say that philosophy is indeed less valuable because most people don't care for it.
what's her rating?
If it's not ten, it's really close.
To appreciate a chess game, one must be able to play chess. To appreciate a football game you just have to have a butt to place on your sofa. This is why chess is not a spectator sport.
lol...obviously not a football fan. 
lol...it's a transliteration. There can be no talk of a "real" name here.
Here's a follow-up question.
What about in Bobby Fischer's day? I was around, but wasn't Fischer a national hero in the US?
Could the American public today even name the best U.S. player?
I guess maybe in Fischer's day there was more at stake? Of course I'm talking about US (capitalist) and USSR (communist) ideological conflicts and the symbolism of Fischer vs. the Soviet Union. ...But, still, to have a whole country know who you are due to chess is pretty amazing.
Was the culture different then? Less TV, video games, etc. possibly at all? ....And what about in the old Soviet Union? Was chess "popular" in the USSR back then?
I wasn't around for Fischer either. but in the early 90's i was stationed in Brittain, for the Short/ Nunn/ Adams craze.
And I'm glad I was. Because chess was everywhere, then! It was unreal.
But to answer your question, chess was always most popular in the Soviet Union, and the Warsaw Pact countries, because those countries produced the most chess stars. Giving those people somebody to root for.
If Anand and Fischer have proven anything, it is that chess has the potential to be just popular anywhere, as it was behind the Iron Curtain, IF the correct leader emerges to shepherd it there.