The world hates chess

 Ashvapathi - "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."

I have to disagree. Slow chess is not long gone, but instead played and enjoyed by those few in the world who truly appreciate the beauty of this game. It is because of that kind of love for the game that has spawned what popularity it has and its variants.

Yes, the faster time controls are more popular to watch. That's because most people who are watching do not have the patience or appreciation for the battle one game of chess is. And many beginning players want this fast play. Those who have a deeper interest in game are going to want slower play to allow deeper calculation resulting in more accurate play.

Slow time controls are here to stay. Classic chess will always be played by those of us who will remain a minority on this planet.

The problem is that computers calculate so fast and so accurately - and can play a 3000+ level game with just seconds for each move - that the human desire to emulate such speed and such precision is understandable. 

Regarding draws, only one rule needs to be introduced to the Title game. A draw by agreement means a deduction in the winnings for both sides.

Bravo! 

the world thinks that the chess is a boring game.

So chess has no sex appeal. How about a chess mascot, a dog like Spuds Mackenzie that has bikini chics hanging all over him? 

lol. perhaps a couple of cheerleaders entertaining us whilst they play.

"carlsen, carlsen, he's our man. if he can't do it?, noone can."

i'm thinking we'd see less flawless draws. :)

Yawn!

The simple reason why chess popularity has declined(while the popularity of other games and sports has increased) is the failure of chess to adapt to changing realities. What changed? Television. Most sports and games cashed in on television to become popular and thereby rich. Many games and sports have changed formats and introduced new ideas to appeal to the TV audience. Chess administrators seem to be living in a fool's paradise that donations(from sponsors) and live audience is enough to survive as a game. The failure to adapt to TV has been the biggest reason for the decline of Chess popularity from 80s onwards. And this decline in popularity is glaring as not many non-chess players seem to even know that there is a world championship of chess going on right now. It should be alarm bells ringing for chess administrators if they have any brains. They should ditch slow format and start promoting the rapid format for TV audience and package it better along with lots of publicity blitz. Yea, it means cheerleaders too, if thats what it takes.

Chess is popular. But of course it will not match basketball in popularity. But chess is indeed popular. 6 million viewers for the world championship is not a bad figure. ESPN also showed the match. Chess related stuff in youtube has many viewers.

Chess as a game is popular, yes(it has been the case from the time some ancient Indian invented it. And chess has gone through many adaptations and formats during that period). But, I am talking about modern chess played by the professionals(and organized by FIDE) being popular or not. Clearly, its popularity seems to be declining very fast(say from the times of Fischer). During the same period, other games and sports administrators have increased the popularity of their fields tremendously by cashing in on TV audience. Chess missed the boat.

Chess is still alive because chess as a board game is so popular by itself. Otherwise, the slow chess format(and bad professional chess packaging) would have killed chess and made it into that game in olympics where horse jumps over the hoops.

I think another reason chess is not so popular a spectator sport than some others is that in order to understand/appreciate top-level games, you need to have an excellent understanding of the game and be a good player yourself. Players like me - who probably make up the vast majority of players - have no chance of understanding what's going on in GM games without a lot of expert commentary. With many ball sports, though, if you know the rules and have a basic understanding of tactics and strategy, you can appreciate the skill and beauty in most types of play.

Chess hasn't adapted well to television because world class chess isn't understood even by its most devoted fans, while an unbelievable catch by Jerry Rice can be appreciated without knowing thirty four variations and possibilities of the Nine Up game. Suggesting that chess be shown on TV is imbecilic, at best. How many channels show rapid fire battles of advanced mathematics between Cedric Villani and Terence Tao? Because that's what chess is: perhaps fun to play for people uninterested in investing serious time on it, but very, very boring when they have to watch stuff that flies over their heads.

Watching Carlsen and Karjakin hit each other with master-level strength in less than 10 seconds will be just as incomprehensible.

Well, this is what happens, on those occasions that chess suddenly gets popular: people who don't normally play rated events get all fired up, maybe join the USCF, and then find a tournament to play in.

Then they go to the tournament, and they see just exactly what kind of scene US Chess really is.

Then chess becomes unpopular again. It's not that surprising.

I think you guys are criticizing the commentary that has been done of tournaments of many tournaments

have any of you guys watched that?

lets see; the team is Gm seirawan, GM ashley and WGM jennifer Shahade.  and I think they do a great job explaining the game.

they delve in to trivia; they answer submitted questions, they show similar games and engine evaluation; and Seirawan particularly brings out the thinking process of the worlds best chess players-- bringing out the drama in a very human (but high level) game...

to suggest this isn't watchable; really means that you have no appetite for high level chess.

and thats ok.

but its not like a better approach to commentary is going to change anything.

i think that hosting teams does about the best one could possibly do.  I would prefer shorter games just for the fact that it is not easy to find 5-6 hours of free time.

(another point I may Make is that their commentary is SO good, there are little lessons about chess all throughout their broadcast. )...

I love watching high level chess. (in response to patzer's post above: good post)

Now, I have been thinking about the title of this thread. I submit that it would more accurately describe the world's take on the game if it were titled, "The World is Intimidated by Chess."

I really think that the majority of people (non chess players) are intimidated by the game than they are opposed to it. I am convinced that most people who say they do not like chess would actually like it once they are shown how to develop a strategy, thus removing the intimidation factor.

R-n-O: GM Ashley is there to provide an adrenaline boost to those in the audience who need it. If Jen and Yas get seemingly monotonous to some (not to me, I like them both), Ashley steps in for a few seconds and gives some input in an NFL sounding way. I think it's all about keeping your audience's attention.