I don't want to cause panic but ...

Do you think chess is ever going to die out, with all of the advances of technology, Is it possible that chess can die out of peoples lives all together.

Even though chess is not alive but an idea will it at some point cease to exist. but

Don't panic!!!

I don't think it will.

Frankly, I doubt we will be able to solve chess for a very long time. Simply because pawns promote in chess. That one tiny detail screws up our computers and makes the game incredibly difficult to solve. However, it is a possibility that one day in the distant future, like checkers, chess will be solved.

No chess will be played by everybody 1000 years from now.

maybe chess will be more partially solved than now and it will be impossible to win against a computer.

but humans still have to find the best move since you cannot bruteforce 100000000000 moves in a seconds.

people may turn up with a winning line 15 moves deep but they still have to play it out to mate. what happens if the opponent plays something else than the computer. can he refute it.

As long as I have set and my right mind I'll play, after that it makes no difference to me.

Ok, I won't panic.

Chess will never totally disappear, but it's in decline, and I believe it will continue to do so. As much as the chess world pretends otherwise, Kasparov's loss to Deeper Blue was a heavy blow to the game.  There's much less romantic cachet attached to the game anymore, when all judgements are rendered by the almighty Fritz in decimal places.  No human world champion will ever again be the best in the world, carrying a sheen of invincibility -- we all see their flaws immediately in real-time.

Also, contrary to popular belief, I think chess WILL be solved in the not-at-all-distant future.  Look up "quantum computer" sometime; chess is an ideal use case for that computing model.  It will happen, within the next 20 years at most.  (I also predict it will be a draw with perfect play, but that's just my own opinion.)

Think about how you yourself would regard the game if you knew that to be true.  There's no reason it will have any practical effect on your play -- nothing will have really changed beyond the perception, and we're all so imperfect that it doesn't really matter what the theoretical result is.  But that perception is powerful.  US chess undeniably owed its popularity in the 70s and onward to Bobby Fischer, and there are no more saviors like that coming.  The dreams and heros available are of much smaller stature than they once were. 

There will always be those that enjoy the diversion and the challenge of the game.  I just see it drawing fewer and fewer fans over time.

I doubt tournament chess as we know it now will be around in 20 years. If you were planning to play OTB, I would be doing it now.

I think that these days, chess in the sub-2000 level is much the same as it was 20 years ago. I think that chess at the top level is very very different. I think actually that today chess is more imaginative at the top level than it was 20 years ago, because computers have helped players get quicker, more definitive evaluations for positions that in the past have taken years to get right over the board.

As a recent article in Chess Life said, high level GMs today must play in a rather nonconventional manner if they are to beat other high level GMs. It doesn't typically work anymore to play classically.

This is not good for me, since I am a Classical player, by preference, and by training. But then again I am not trying to become a high level GM. And honestly I would be perfectly ok with draws against them. :-)

Imagine a world in which Starbuck's took an interest promoting chess.

It was said 50 or more years ago that the infantry would be obsolete by this time,too.  But despite all of the technology it is still here. 

I think computers have really helped chess.  Analysis of positions is much more objective, and everybody has access to super GM analysis.  Of course nobody plays computers anymore, but whoever wanted to?  There seems to be this idea that if you can't be the best, then you shouldn't play.  That's silly.  

I agree with nimzo though (if this is his meaning), that most chess play will be online very soon.  It's just so much more convenient.

But chess will be around forever.  Humans are very clever, and this is our best game.  People will always love chess.

Those who play Go would disagree.

But I disagree with them.

Consider the following;

Postal Chess - nearly extinct.

Correspondence Chess - Engine aided - something like 70% of 2008 and later games are drawn on ICCF due to having one dominant chess engine- Rybka.

Adjournaments - gone.

Classical chess - Fide now considers 90min+30 sec per move as the appropriate time control for Classical Chess.

Professional Chess - Continued failure to find regular sponsors, loss of players to competing activities like poker, top level tournaments frequently held in obscure locations i.e. Khanty Mansk where they have zero spectators. Lack of vision, leadership at practically all ranks of organized chess.

Open tournaments - prices for tournaments have steadily gone up along with travel and lodging costs. Declining attendance means less than full prizes awarded at most events.

even the positives have negative side effects -

watching kibitzing of titled players - constantly interrupted by players spamming engine assessments and declaring super gm X is an idiot.

rampant cheating in all forms online chess

engine assisted play cropping up in otb tournaments

WC match game where not a single move wasn't prematch preparation. (Kramnik and he lost .)

I found this interesting comment of Capablanca: Capablanca was quoted in the Charleston Gazette on February 12, 1928: "In chess today everything is known to great players. There are no new moves, no new tactics to consider. If the game is to grow it will have to be modified."

With internet play (cheating notwithstanding) there are probably more people involved in playing chess on a regular basis than at any time before.

The litany of woes above, seems to be regarding professional chess, which is nothing that interests me anyhow. Whatever is infested by money is ruined. I, however have remained nearly uncontaminated by money all these years. So chess, for me, remains a game to play between me and someone else. And if they are mentally crippled and need to have Rybka recommend moves for them, then they probably won't be playing chess much longer.

I have thought about this as well. I find the topic of attempting to solve chess very interesting. This sort of causes me to wonder; however, if we assume that pawns do not advance- how easy is chess to solve then? I am not so sure that the difficulty in solving chess lies entirely in the advancement of pawns. One reason being that once a piece is removed from the game, you never get it back. Thus as the game progresses- the complexity seems to decrease. Also, we may recognize that there is a certain number of moves before which pawn advancement cannot happen at all.

These acknowledgements allow us to break the problem of solving chess into little chunks that can be handled more easily (the question is how much more).

My guess would be that once we solve (chess)-(pawn advancement) case, then the case of adding pawn advancement back in would not be nearly as hard and may be considered to be simply an extension of the base case (just a guess).

Why do you think this?

Exactly. Every generation has bemoaned that everything is going down the crapper. Either we are on a never-ending suckfest into oblivion, or some people need perspective.

In what sense?