X-Box and Playstation beat Deep Blue in making chess less popular.
That’s a good point.
Surely video games killed the players of analog games.
In the early 1980s of Japan, before the Nintendo Entertainment System, there are 20 million players of Shogi and 10 million players of Go. But the population had rapidly declined by degital games. Now there are only 5.3 million players of Shogi and 2.5 million players of Go.
X-Box and Playstation beat Deep Blue in making chess less popular.
That’s a good point.
Surely video games killed the players of analog games.
In the early 1980s of Japan, before the Nintendo Entertainment System, there are 20 million players of Shogi and 10 million players of Go. But the population had rapidly declined by degital games. Now there are only 5.3 million players of Shogi and 2.5 million players of Go.
Not only that, but there's more money, more popularity, more commercial success for video games and e-sports. There's some big money for winners of video games like League of Legends. I'm sure that has put a dent in Chess participation and popularity.
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.
I agree with you.
People (especially the younger generation) have less interest in analog games. In Japan, there are 21.7 million players of digital games, on the one hand, 5.3 million of Shogi and 2.5 million of Go.
But now 14-year-old Pro Shogi player is very much in the public eye in Japan. He won 29 successive games and made a new record yesterday. Men and women of all ages knew "Souta Fujii".
Surely Japan is a small country. But I felt the potential that analog games like Shogi and chess revive from the Shogi player's news.
X-Box and Playstation beat Deep Blue in making chess less popular.
That’s a good point.
Surely video games killed the players of analog games.
In the early 1980s of Japan, before the Nintendo Entertainment System, there are 20 million players of Shogi and 10 million players of Go. But the population had rapidly declined by degital games. Now there are only 5.3 million players of Shogi and 2.5 million players of Go.
Not only that, but there's more money, more popularity, more commercial success for video games and e-sports. There's some big money for winners of video games like League of Legends. I'm sure that has put a dent in Chess participation and popularity.
I agree with you.
According to this article, e-sports took away applicants from even online poker.
https://www.uspoker.com/blog/another-poker-boom-is-not-coming/12371/
Even now the World Chess Champion can earn $1 million. But most of chess players cannot make money at all.
After DB beat Kasparov,.my friend Nacho gave up chess in tears. Now he hangs around casinos all day asking people if they can spot him couple of bucks.
As you say, the population of chess increased. But I meant "changes" as "process" not "result". I want to know the process after AI won the champion.
I'm sorry I didn't explain "FIDE rating" enough. I wanted to say that FIDE rating had puzzled chess fans because the FIDE rating #1 hadn't often matched the World Chess Champion.
http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2013/11/the_world_chess_championship_is_an_embarrassing_anachronism_it_s_time_to.single.html
Deep Blue didn´t have any effect on the popularity of chess, because today the game is more popular than it was 20 years ago and that is because of the internet and more chess school programs mainly. It is also explained by the fact that the amount of players today is bigger, something cannot become more popular without more people taking a interest in it, think about it.
Also more money gets spend on chess than 20 years ago, so there are much more tournaments nowadays and even federation support in some countries which didn´t exist 20 years ago. However the problem is that the amount of chess professionals has grown proportionaly larger than the prize funds, so unless you are a top player you can´t expect to earn much. Fischer made efforts to get more money for the world championship and succeeded but that again only benefits the few top chess players. Chess itself was never a game to earn big money to begin with, not today and especially not 20 years ago. Because it never was mainstream, only maybe in the Soviet Union..
About FIDE ratings you are mistaken, most of the time FIDE rating #1 was also the world champion. About 70% of the time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_FIDE_chess_world_number_ones
If you don´t count FIDE paper champions between 1993-2006, then all undisputed world champions were also #1 on the FIDE rating list at some point, with exception of Spassky in 1971 (when the ratings started) and Topalov who never became undisputed world champion while being #1 rated.
I thought deep blue was porn. I'll tell the wife I was playing chess next time I'm caught. :)
After DB beat Kasparov,.my friend Nacho gave up chess in tears. Now he hangs around casinos all day asking people if they can spot him couple of bucks.
Really?
Your friend's story is very interesting. Deep Blue must have changed many people's lives.
As you say, the population of chess increased. But I meant "changes" as "process" not "result". I want to know the process after AI won the champion.
I'm sorry I didn't explain "FIDE rating" enough. I wanted to say that FIDE rating had puzzled chess fans because the FIDE rating #1 hadn't often matched the World Chess Champion.
http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2013/11/the_world_chess_championship_is_an_embarrassing_anachronism_it_s_time_to.single.html
Deep Blue didn´t have any effect on the popularity of chess, because today the game is more popular than it was 20 years ago and that is because of the internet and more chess school programs mainly. It is also explained by the fact that the amount of players today is bigger, something cannot become more popular without more people taking a interest in it, think about it.
Also more money gets spend on chess than 20 years ago, so there are much more tournaments nowadays and even federation support in some countries which didn´t exist 20 years ago. However the problem is that the amount of chess professionals has grown proportionaly larger than the prize funds, so unless you are a top player you can´t expect to earn much. Fischer made efforts to get more money for the world championship and succeeded but that again only benefits the few top chess players. Chess itself was never a game to earn big money to begin with, not today and especially not 20 years ago. Because it never was mainstream, only maybe in the Soviet Union..
About FIDE ratings you are mistaken, most of the time FIDE rating #1 was also the world champion. About 70% of the time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_FIDE_chess_world_number_ones
If you don´t count FIDE paper champions between 1993-2006, then all undisputed world champions were also #1 on the FIDE rating list at some point, with exception of Spassky in 1971 (when the ratings started) and Topalov who never became undisputed world champion while being #1 rated.
As you say, Deep Blue didn't have any effect on the popularity of chess in general. But two people told that they gave up chess because of Deep Blue in this forum. I wanted to know personal experiences not only general trends.
The FIDE rating #1 have not completely matched the World Chess Champion even after 2006. Carlsen have almost occupied the FIDE rating #1 since 2010. As you say, all undisputed world champions were also #1 on the FIDE rating list at some point afer 2013. But their separation can occur in the future.
However, I agree with your opinion the FIDE rating had little effect on the popularity of chess.
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.
As you say, the population of chess increased. But I meant "changes" as "process" not "result". I want to know the process after AI won the champion.
I'm sorry I didn't explain "FIDE rating" enough. I wanted to say that FIDE rating had puzzled chess fans because the FIDE rating #1 hadn't often matched the World Chess Champion.
http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2013/11/the_world_chess_championship_is_an_embarrassing_anachronism_it_s_time_to.single.html