Forums

Deep Blue decreased the number of chess players?

Sort:
hasimo1000year
hasimo1000year
Jun 21, 2017
0
#1

AlphaGo won Ke Jie and retired last month. I wonder if the event will decrease the number of Go players.

 

Deep Blue won Kasparov in 1997. 15 years later, AGON estimated the number of chess players to be 605 million in 2012.

 

Without Deep Blue, the number would have increased or decreased? Did the popularity of chess dropped just after Kasparov's defeat? Please let me know.

hasimo1000year
hasimo1000year
Jun 21, 2017
0
#2
bb_gum234 wrote:

I've never heard about how the popularity of chess was affected after Deep Blue.

Two ways technology helped around this time was internet chess letting people play whenever they wanted (some people have no one to play locally) and software that let them analyze their games on their computer.

 

I see your point.
The popularity of chess didn't decline because technology improved convenience.
I agree with you.

 

Anyway, I think Grandmaster was regarded as the symbol of human intellect. The defeat against AI didn't really affect the popularity of chess, did it?

CaissasDelight
CaissasDelight
Jun 21, 2017
0
#3

The popularity of Chess dropped after Kasparov split from FIDE back in 1993. It ended his rivalry with Karpov (people always like a rivalry) and the number of sponsors declined. Ever since Kasparov there have been no world champions who had his and Fischer's personality to capture the public's imagination and the game has been on a steady drop in popularity and relevance since. The game awaits a renaissance.

hasimo1000year
hasimo1000year
Jun 21, 2017
0
#4
bb_gum234 wrote:

I think people who already played chess at the time didn't stop liking chess after Deep Blue won. Maybe it had an affect on the people who didn't play chess. Maybe non-players thought chess was less interesting if a computer can win.

People still like competing in running and lifting weights, even though machines can do it better. I think for games like chess and go it's not about the intelligence, but the games are sort of mysterious... like how does a strong player choose a move, but after computers can win it's not as mysterious, so maybe it's less interesting for people who don't know how to play.

Maybe more important though is if a person can make money playing the game. I think many young people play for fun, but also dream of being a professional player. If people can become a professional chess or go player, then the game will still attract new players. After people start playing, they realize how fun and interesting it is, and then they don't care if computers can win. Even if they stop trying to be a professional, they will still play for fun. So I think more important is whether people can make money by playing. 

 

It is a common saying that people still like running, even though a car was invented.

I think intellect is different from running. But, as you said, people who already played chess didn't stop liking chess after Deep Blue won.

 

Surely money is a important factor to attract people to the game.

 

According to an article at Chess.com, the world chess championship didn't lose the value after Deep Blue won.

 

https://www.chess.com/article/view/how-much-is-the-world-chess-championship-worth

 

1995 Kasparov  won $1    million

 

1997 Deep Blue won Kasparov

 

2000 Kramnik   won $1.33 million
2006 Kramnik   won $0.5  million
2008 Anand     won $0.95 million
2010 Anand     won $1.68 million
2012 Anand     won $1.53 million
2013 Carlsen   won $1.5  million
2014 Carlsen   won $0.75 million

MayCaesar
MayCaesar
Jun 21, 2017
0
#5

I think it is the other way around. The age of computers pulled in large masses of new players into the game, who otherwise wouldn't play chess, as well as various computer enthusiasts, who was inspired by Deep Blue to learn about chess engines and, hence, about chess as a whole.

hasimo1000year
hasimo1000year
Jun 21, 2017
0
#6
CaissasDelight wrote:

The popularity of Chess dropped after Kasparov split from FIDE back in 1993. It ended his rivalry with Karpov (people always like a rivalry) and the number of sponsors declined. Ever since Kasparov there have been no world champions who had his and Fischer's personality to capture the public's imagination and the game has been on a steady drop in popularity and relevance since. The game awaits a renaissance.

 

It's a new point of view.

Did you mean that people are interested in only the rivalry between humans? If two impressive players appear, the renaissance will come?

klimski
klimski
Show your flair!
Jun 21, 2017
0
#7
CaissasDelight schreef:

The popularity of Chess dropped after Kasparov split from FIDE back in 1993. It ended his rivalry with Karpov (people always like a rivalry) and the number of sponsors declined. Ever since Kasparov there have been no world champions who had his and Fischer's personality to capture the public's imagination and the game has been on a steady drop in popularity and relevance since. The game awaits a renaissance.

 

Don't blame Kasparov for the decline of sponsorship, FIDE is to blame for that, aligning itself firmly with weird dictators and the like. This is very unappealing to serious money sponsors (ie. the Microsofts, big banks, insurance companies and the like). 

 

hasimo1000year
hasimo1000year
Jun 21, 2017
0
#8
MayCaesar wrote:

I think it is the other way around. The age of computers pulled in large masses of new players into the game, who otherwise wouldn't play chess, as well as various computer enthusiasts, who was inspired by Deep Blue to learn about chess engines and, hence, about chess as a whole.

 

I agree with you.
Of course, the development of the internet and AI had a positive impact on chess. But I wonder if it also had a negative impact.

Pashak1989
Pashak1989
Jun 21, 2017
0
#9

I don't think anybody thought "Damn, the computer won! I won't play chess anymore!"

CaissasDelight
CaissasDelight
Jun 21, 2017
0
#10
hasimo1000year wrote:
CaissasDelight wrote:

The popularity of Chess dropped after Kasparov split from FIDE back in 1993. It ended his rivalry with Karpov (people always like a rivalry) and the number of sponsors declined. Ever since Kasparov there have been no world champions who had his and Fischer's personality to capture the public's imagination and the game has been on a steady drop in popularity and relevance since. The game awaits a renaissance.

 

It's a new point of view.

Did you mean that people are interested in only the rivalry between humans? If two impressive players appear, the renaissance will come?

A rivalry certainly helps with popularity. Look at Fischer and his rivalry with Spassky, not only was that time the period when Chess hit its peak in popularity, it also symbolized the conflict between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. at the time, making the game even more popular and relevant.

A great rivalry will certainly boost the popularity of the game, or at least a world champ who has the brilliancy and charisma to get the masses interested in the game again. And when that happens other factors will also jump in the bandwagon like the media, politics, art, etc., like back in the day.

Good looks also help. Capablanca, Fischer, and Kasparov weren't bad-looking men and that certainly helped with them being stars in their day. :-)

SeniorPatzer
SeniorPatzer
Jun 21, 2017
0
#11
hasimo1000year wrote:

AlphaGo won Ke Jie and retired last month. I wonder if the event will decrease the number of Go players.

 

Deep Blue won Kasparov in 1997. 15 years later, AGON estimated the number of chess players to be 605 million in 2012.

 

Without Deep Blue, the number would have increased or decreased? Did the popularity of chess dropped just after Kasparov's defeat? Please let me know.

 

For me personally, Deep Blue's victory did cause me, or actually helped reaffirm my decision to abandon chess nearly 30 years ago.   

 

I only came back because my young son joined the chess club at his elementary school and got a chesskid.com account earlier this year.

Molotok89
Molotok89
Jun 21, 2017
0
#12

Q: Deep Blue decreased the number of chess players?

A: No. Today we have way more professional (and amateur) chess players than 20 years ago. If anything the increase has nothing to do with Deep Blue, but rather because of internet and with it a much easier access to information and a more connected world. And not to forget a bigger global population.

 

hasimo1000year
hasimo1000year
Jun 21, 2017
0
#13
knig22 wrote:

Coincidently, i heard yesterday a Go program had defeated the strongest human player. It uses neural networks. Maybe those can be used in chess programs as well?

 

Maybe.

 

According to Wikipedia,

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlphaGo

 

"Once it had reached a certain degree of proficiency, it was trained further by being set to play large numbers of games against other instances of itself, using reinforcement learning to improve its play."

 

I think whether the algorithm applies to chess depends on Google.

hasimo1000year
hasimo1000year
Jun 21, 2017
0
#14
Pashak1989 wrote:

I don't think anybody thought "Damn, the computer won! I won't play chess anymore!"

 

Yes, of course.

 

But the population of Go and the authority of Pro Go players declined in Korea after AlphaGo's win. I wonder if the number of Go players will decrease in the long term. Therefore I want to refer to Deep Blue.

hasimo1000year
hasimo1000year
Jun 21, 2017
0
#15
CaissasDelight wrote:
hasimo1000year wrote:
CaissasDelight wrote:

The popularity of Chess dropped after Kasparov split from FIDE back in 1993. It ended his rivalry with Karpov (people always like a rivalry) and the number of sponsors declined. Ever since Kasparov there have been no world champions who had his and Fischer's personality to capture the public's imagination and the game has been on a steady drop in popularity and relevance since. The game awaits a renaissance.

 

It's a new point of view.

Did you mean that people are interested in only the rivalry between humans? If two impressive players appear, the renaissance will come?

A rivalry certainly helps with popularity. Look at Fischer and his rivalry with Spassky, not only was that time the period when Chess hit its peak in popularity, it also symbolized the conflict between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. at the time, making the game even more popular and relevant.

A great rivalry will certainly boost the popularity of the game, or at least a world champ who has the brilliancy and charisma to get the masses interested in the game again. And when that happens other factors will also jump in the bandwagon like the media, politics, art, etc., like back in the day.

Good looks also help. Capablanca, Fischer, and Kasparov weren't bad-looking men and that certainly helped with them being stars in their day. :-)

 

I see your point.

 

Just now 14-year-old Pro Shogi player is very much in the public eye in Japan. He won 28 successive games and made a new record yesterday.

 

I agree with you. Many people like attractive human players and their rivalry rather than AI.

hasimo1000year
hasimo1000year
Jun 21, 2017
0
#16
SeniorPatzer wrote:
hasimo1000year wrote:

AlphaGo won Ke Jie and retired last month. I wonder if the event will decrease the number of Go players.

 

Deep Blue won Kasparov in 1997. 15 years later, AGON estimated the number of chess players to be 605 million in 2012.

 

Without Deep Blue, the number would have increased or decreased? Did the popularity of chess dropped just after Kasparov's defeat? Please let me know.

 

For me personally, Deep Blue's victory did cause me, or actually helped reaffirm my decision to abandon chess nearly 30 years ago.   

 

I only came back because my young son joined the chess club at his elementary school and got a chesskid.com account earlier this year.

 

Your personal experience helps me a lot.

 

Enjoy playing chess with your son!

hasimo1000year
hasimo1000year
Jun 21, 2017
0
#17
Molotok89 wrote:
Q: Deep Blue decreased the number of chess players?

A: No. Today we have way more professional (and amateur) chess players than 20 years ago. If anything the increase has nothing to do with Deep Blue, but rather because of internet and with it a much easier access to information and a more connected world. And not to forget a bigger global population.

 

 

Sure. We have more chess players than 20 years ago.

 

I'm interested in the changes of the population of chess and the influence of factors (Deep Blue, internet, FIDE rating).

Molotok89
Molotok89
Jun 22, 2017
0
#18
hasimo1000year wrote:

Sure. We have more chess players than 20 years ago.

I'm interested in the changes of the population of chess and the influence of factors (Deep Blue, internet, FIDE rating).

Changes of the population of chess = increase (more players than back then).

Factor = bigger global population -> Influence = more people on earth, so more people play the game.

Another Factor = internet -> Influence = a more connected world and easier access to information, so more people can share or get chess material/knowledge fast.

 

About Deep Blue = no influence on changes of the population of chess, but on public interest of human versus machine matches.

And FIDE rating, also no influence and not even a factor. It is the other way around, the population of chess has an effect on FIDE rating. With more players, the total rating will slowly inflate over time.

Dubious-Duck
Dubious-Duck
Closed: Inactive
Jun 22, 2017
0
#19

X-Box and Playstation beat Deep Blue in making chess less popular.

CaissasDelight
CaissasDelight
Jun 22, 2017
0
#20
Dubious-Duck wrote:

X-Box and Playstation beat Deep Blue in making chess less popular.

Heh, you may have a point there.

I don't think there are more Chess players nowadays, much more people interested in the game. Back in the day Joe Public more or less knew Kasparov was the world champion. I don't have to mention Fischer's popularity. Those facts alone highlight the game's relevance and inevitably attracted more people to the game. Nowadays Magnus Carlsen could play Chess in a New York park and not a single player would recognize him. Not to mention the lack of media coverage, I don't see CNN and BBC covering world Chess championships and even newspapers don't have Chess articles and puzzles like they used to. Obviously, this lack of information has its results and far less people (especially the younger generation) are going to be aware, much more hooked, into the game.