For more than a century now it has been possible for machines to move faster than humans. However, this has no impact on the vitality of human competition. We still have the Olympics. We still celebrate 'the fastest man on earth' (typically the 100m race winner).
Machines can also lift more weight than the strongest humans. But we still have human weight-lifting contests. Nobody says that weight lifting is dead.
I just don't get why some people think that the fact that machines can play better chess than humans should have any impact on the vitality of human competition in chess.
Because all of those examples are physical. Faster, stronger, quicker, more versatile machines dont make sports dead or less enjoyable. Like you said we still have the olympics and weight lifting. But in the case of chess, it's not physical. It's mental. So machines that perform better than humans when it comes to thinking make the activity less enjoyable.
In almost all examples machines that are better than humans in physical ability dont really impact the enjoyment of those physical activities. But when a machine is better at thinking (like math or chess or computing) that competition becomes a lot less popular.
Chess will never die. But it will never have the competition popularity it once had because now people are not as impressed as they once were.
Of course, you are entitled to your opinion. But I just don't agree with it.
It's true the examples I gave were about physical prowess. But I don't see why it should be different if a machine is better at something mentally rather than physically. You say that 'humans in physical ability don't really impact the enjoyment of those physical activities. But when a machine is better at thinking (like math or chess or computing) that competition becomes a lot less popular.' - but stating that does not make it true. I cannot see why we should not enjoy playing chess with each other and competing to be the best in the world just because machines can do it better. I honestly just cannot see your argument. Why should be enjoy playing chess less if machines can play better than us? I just don't get it. Though I understand it is your belief.
And although I gave physical examples, I could have noted that there has been in decline in, for example, mathematical competitions over the last four of five decades despite the obvious fact that computers can do this better. We still have international Bridge tournaments. We still host coding competitions.
In any event, before we seek reasons for why chess is becoming less popular we should ask whether chess is becoming less popular. I am not convinced that it is. A survey in 2012 estimated that > 600 million people play chess regularly in the world
The USCF had 1000 members in the 1940s, growing slowly but steadily. Bobby Fischer transfixed the American public in particular of course. Membership boomed to about 60,000 in the mid 70s. But what has happened since? How many people are members of USCF today (2020)? The answer is over 90,000. And a great many of these are children where there has been a particular spike in interest recently.
In other words, chess is growing in popularity in the USA not becoming less popular. So there is no reason to invent reasons (be it the dominance of computers or the growth of internet e-sports) to explain its decline. I have no doubt that an American World Chess Champion would generate huge interest in USA.
What about the rest of the word? Until a few decades ago hardly anyone played chess in China. Today there are an estimated 3 million people who play chess in China with > 300,000 being members of the Chinese ChesS federation
If anything chess is growing in popularity.
For more than a century now it has been possible for machines to move faster than humans. However, this has no impact on the vitality of human competition. We still have the Olympics. We still celebrate 'the fastest man on earth' (typically the 100m race winner).
Machines can also lift more weight than the strongest humans. But we still have human weight-lifting contests. Nobody says that weight lifting is dead.
I just don't get why some people think that the fact that machines can play better chess than humans should have any impact on the vitality of human competition in chess.
Because all of those examples are physical. Faster, stronger, quicker, more versatile machines dont make sports dead or less enjoyable. Like you said we still have the olympics and weight lifting. But in the case of chess, it's not physical. It's mental. So machines that perform better than humans when it comes to thinking make the activity less enjoyable.
In almost all examples machines that are better than humans in physical ability dont really impact the enjoyment of those physical activities. But when a machine is better at thinking (like math or chess or computing) that competition becomes a lot less popular.
Chess will never die. But it will never have the competition popularity it once had because now people are not as impressed as they once were.