Why isn't chess more popular?

Chess wasn't all that popular 40 or 50 years ago, either (except in third world countries on account of their not having electricity).

I suppose we would have to list the reasons why we play chess first, identify  any common responses.

Then ask ourselves what is the purpose of boardgames? No two generations are 100% alike, with time, our preferences to what we perceive to be fun changes, aswell as other things. 

I wrote a blog called Invisible Gorrila, in which I tried to tackle the question "Does chess make you smarter?", which clearly implies some people play the sport for that particular reason and so fourth. 

I believe chess is not as popular as other board games, due to a number of factors, every board game you mentioned has and is currently being advertised on telly, radio and other media outlets, so it is already generating an interest, whether people like it or not is another story. 

Chess can be seen to be daunting and gibberish, some may say it is colourless, tedious and an unnecessary headache. All boardgames can fit that description if you don't understand it, however I have never met people who can effectively summerise the beauty of chess to captivate humans of all ages. Other board games seem to have a knack to attract us, slogans, mottos, images, key-phrases etc, this combined with an enthusiastic gamer selling it, proves hard to ignore. 

I suppose chess attracts people who think in a certain way, deep-thinkers, problem solvers, or those who simply wish to improve their mental ability. 

To find out more, 

http://blog.chess.com/kiwi_overtherainbow/why-i-love-and-hate-chess

http://blog.chess.com/kiwi_overtherainbow/the-invisible-gorilla-formula-to-success

I think that the only reason those of us who play chess do so is because someone we know (or knew) snookered us into a game of chess.

We lost. We didn't enjoy that. It felt like a kick in the pants.

So we wanted revenge and played another game. Which led to another...and another...and another...and another...

We are on autopilot, perpetual motion machines devoid of free will at this point, having totally forgotten the reason why we ever played a second game, in the first place.

Are you forgetting about Bobby Fischer? Chess was very popular in the US during his run to the world title.

Wikipedia: Championship is a term used in sport to refer to various forms of competition in which the aim is to decide which individual or team is the champion. →

Actually, no.

I was born the same year as Bobby Fischer. I grew up where he did, as well. And, I started playing chess around the same time.

Yes...there was a "sensation" about Bobby. But average folk had absolutely no idea who he was. And, they didn't play chess. If they tended to do anything, it was to go bowling.

Sputnik had a far greater impact than did Bobby.

I know these things because I lived it.

Here is an example of what I just said:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7JcwOJADf8

I asked a guy where I used to work who was in his mid sixties, and said he used to be in his high school's chess club, how many members were in the club, and he said five, cause nobody else was interested. I think he graduated in 65 or 6.

There definitely was a spurt of interest in chess back then, because of Bobby. But it's a percentage thing.

Like there are about 4,000 new members per day at chess.com. Wow! That's a lot. Then, divide that by about 6.5 billion people on the planet and the percentage is inconsequential.

BTW, I graduated from high school in Brooklyn in 1961. I played a lot of chess back then. In my case, I started playing before Bobby had won fame. After he started to become famous? There were people who took up chess. But, the average person had no more interest than the average person does today.

I just asked my wife (we are married 46 years) what she thought of Bobby Fischer "back in the day". Response: "I wasn't aware of him." Exactly what I knew she'd say.

P.S.: I asked her twice. The second time, she was mildly annoyed: "I already told you!" lol

Thanx for the post, had a good old chuckle. When I joined here year or so ago, I knew zero about anyone famous playing chess and shocked that there actually was famous chess players.

P.S I still know zero but know a couple names now. : ) 

You honestly didn't know? lmaoooooooo

And within the past 20+ posts it has clearly reached escape velocity.

Look for it up the skies at night, in Freudian Therapeutic Orbit. 

Of course, Mexico is just FULL of highly educated people with exceptionally brilliant minds...It is just an irrelevant side note that there have been no important technological/scientific or medical advances made there, the country is in a complete shambles (and not only economically), the average number of years of schooling among adults is only 7, and Mexico has absolutely no top chess players (the only significant Mexican player being Torre).

There are 55 thousand active chess players in the U.S. Chess Federation, of which about 35 thousand are under the age of 21 years.  Go to most tournaments and the average playing strength is about USCF 1800, which is the 90th percentile for active players.  

The top 10 percent of active players account for about 1/2 of all rated tournament games, hence the "average" or 50th percentile rating for most tournaments is about USCF 1800.  These guys are busy.

And many of the Kids are Killers.    Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Every 400 rating points represents a "qualitative leap" in playing strength.

Making National Master (NM) at USCF 2200 puts you in the top 1 percent of active tournament players.  But given that GM levels start roughly at 2600 ratings, even the NM's are qualitatively way below the GMs.

Some players (about 10 percent) make "The Leap" two or perhaps three times, from 1000, to 1400, to 1800.  Very few players make it to 2200.

"Good chess players" (in the U.S.) start around USCF 1900 (the 93rd percentile of active players), IMHO.  There are no shortcuts to improving your playing strength.  And the only thing easy in chess is to play badly.

Chess players are an eccentric lot.  Get used to it.

Some, like the original poster (@George) of this thread don't even wear shirts.  

Because Chess is the Game of Kings!

Let the uneducated Peasants do as they will.

Psht. Uneducated is a bad descriptor. Plenty of geniuses in history didn't have any large interest in chess. If we went by that description, us chess players are pheasants (yes, I mean the bird) compared to the electrical engineers that make computers which can beat us.

:D From the mouth of the late Bobby Fischer

Hahahahahaha

Things that are easily appreciated are popular. Basketball is popular because it is easy to do, the rules are simple and its fun not that being successful in it is easy it still requires a lot of hardwork, talent, and you have at least to be tall.  Chess is unpopular because it is hard. There is no way anyone can improve without studying openings and tactics. That takes time and today's fast paced world doesn't leave anytime for chess even if blitz and bullets are popular. Besides if you keep on losing it takes away the fun.