The world hates chess

Looking for reviews of the championship I googled "2016 wcc results" and anything related to chess was TWENTY links down the page and it was an article written when the score was 3.5-4.5 after 8 games. I took out "results" and googled "2016 wcc" and it was TENTH down the list.

Links regarding the following subjects appear above the World Chess Championship:

LaCrosse

men's basketball

Women's basketball

Hockey

Wisconsin Conservation Congress

Cross Country (running)

Golf

rowing

and last and definitely LEAST World Carp Classic. 

All of these things generate more interest than chess. 

Even the Wisconsin Conservation Congress? Ouch, that hurts.

Chess24's coverage of the WCC was trending on youtube just yesterday...

As the acronym "wcc" is vague, you are finding results using that abbreviation.

When I Googled "2016 World Chess Championship", I received 537,000 hits.

So your conclusion is invalid.

well for me chess is at no. one position . 

i really don't much care about basketball , hockey or golf . i am not saying that i hate these , just saying i have no interest in them . for me there is only chess

Obvious exceptions to the rule but generally speaking the population is disinterested. 

And rightly so.

That is a fact

so?

Chess is a touchstone for 'quality', in the sense that Robert M. Pirsig used the word in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. So why on earth would chess be popular, given that we are surrounded by superficial, transient trash and the cult of the 'personality'? Ask young people what they want to be when they grow up these days and many will say they want to be famous. Not famous FOR something admiral, wonderful or enduring, just 'famous'. And of course they have as their role models countless people who are famous for being famous, nothing else. And then there is the Royal Game. So let a majority of people be completely uninterested in chess - why should you care?

World doesn't hate chess. Its the slow format which is killing chess. The slow format gives an impression that chess must be the most boring game in the world. And to add to it, there is little publicity and overall bad packaging(coverage). So, its a combination of bad product(slow format), bad packaging(coverage) and bad salesmanship(publicity) which takes away the interest of people. And to add to it, some chess players seem to prefer chess being an elitist game(like golf) while some others want chess to be a game of social misfits. But, they forget that if chess were elitist or a game of social misfits(or if it were as boring as the slow format tries to make it out), then chess would not have survived for so many years. Also, chess is one of the most adaptable game(which is the reason why it survived for so many years all over the world). So, this extreme reluctance to change anything(including a format) is not suitable to chess administration.

Nothing on Carlsen's retention of the WCC title in UK Google News today...(at least not on main news page)

Chess was actually more popular in early 70s compared to lot of other games and sports. Over the years, chess popularity has declined because of the outdated format and bad packaging and no publicity. And during the same period, other games and sports have grown leaps and bounds in terms of viewership and consequently money. Cricket was nothing in 70s. But, by the time of Anand, cricket star Sachin was bigger in India than Anand.

How many Americans have heard the name Nakamura? People have heard about Carlsen because he is the reigning champ. Thats all. Compare that to other popular sports. And those sports are popular not by coincident or dumb luck but they are popular because they have worked for it, they have adapted themselves to the needs of the audience. Chess actually has much bigger potential than most other games and sports even today. The popularity of chess.com itself is the best example. And chess.com has not risen because of slow formats. No. They have risen because of speed chess. I think the administrators should realize that the days of slow chess are long gone and they should get ready to adapt to the new realities.

Cricket got a lot more coverage back then than it does now, at least in the UK.

Ashvapathi, you seem to be labouring under the delusion that chess should be treated as just another spectator sport.

Cricket, soccer, American football, baseball etc. can be enjoyed even if you don't know much beyond the basic rules. So what if I can never run through incredibly athletic three hundred pounders like Barry Sanders, or bowl as fast as Shaun Tate? I can understand it, and that's all it takes for me to gain pleasure from watching it.

However, chess is different. World class chess players know the game so well that their ideas appear alien to us. This is not the case with soccer: Messi passed to Neymar with a penetrating strike of his foot, and we are cheering because though we will never replicate that in a live game, we can understand why he did that.

Tell me, Ashvapati, how much of that amazing draw between Anand and Topalov in 2005 did you understand without the help of engines or analysis from chess experts? I know I didn't. I still kept going through the moves because it was fascinatingly brilliant and would help me grow as a player, but can you expect someone new to chess to follow it with the same enthusiasm as he/she would while watching Tom Brady throw a quaffle like nobody's business?

I will be the first to say I don't know much about Indian cricket, but the sudden boom of popularity of cricket in India can be explained away by Kapil Dev's team winning the World Cup in 1983.

I don't know anyone in these parts who does this.

Same with snooker

From what I've read chess is the most played game in the world today. On that basis, its potential is massive! Just wait until more Indians and (especially) Chinese (and Japanese) are playing it.