Why play chess? There are unbeatable computers out there.

Anything art cannot be machined.

Thus, true music and visual art cannot be machined.

But the human brain is, at bottom, a machine, and it's not impossible that one day we will be able to build a functionally identical machine that will do everything we can do, and more. As to chess engines, I like one wag's answer after Deep Blue beat Kasparov: "Yes, but how did it do in the post-game interview?"

Only the case for generation Y players and others obsessed with technology and software.

Wiser Players know deep down all that silicion red cool aid their drinking is toxic and poisons the art.

For me, nothing beats sitting across a chessboard facing your opponent and playing with real pieces. Then halfway through the game, you see a chance and take it. He/she makes a mistake, you end up taking their Queen and possibly a rook. They are totally demoralised and you are putting their king in check left right an center. Then its checkmate soon after. You have beaten them. You shake hands and walk away from the board feeling like a million dollars. So what if the likes of Deep Blue and other machines can play better chess than me. In the same way, a Bugatti Veyron can move way faster than me, but I still enjoy going for a run or a walk. Chess will never die. Never.

sounds like the main reason to play chess given in these forums is to make your ego feel better. that ego feeding also gives us war, rape, child abuse, animal abuse, and a myriad of other terrible green and i know it's time when Susan asks me for her keys and I don't even have them.

Sounds like more chess needs to be played.  I don't know of anyone raping anyone else during a chess game.  I suppose it is possible in correspondence chess though.

Conventional computing simply cannot solve chess. There is a possibility that quantum computing might, but progress is quite slow, and solving chess will not be a priority until quantum computing resources are plentiful enough to squander.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU

Why run? There are taxis out there.

The OP has a point, because, unlike many of the other things you all mention, chess has an objective goal---to win. I've never met a player who has been proud of a game he lost. Today, almost all players analyze their games using computers, comparing their moves to what the computer would do.  A better analogy is why people learn how to calculate or do arithmetic in their head, when there are calculators? I'm sure a lot of smart-asses here would think someone was weird going through all the pain of doing manual arithmetic, when a calculator or Excel program is at hand, right? Yet people play chess for the same reason--to get at the truth, to make accurate moves.  Yet computers can do it much better. Why not just sit back and watch computers play chess? Why not use a calculator for all our arithmetic?  I guess then it's just the feeling of accomplishment, and the "mental exercise", such as why we may lift weights to build our bodies, even though machines obviously outclass us in that arena as well. So exercise, yes. Accomplishment? Yes.

But joy? What joy is there in losing chess? To me, every win is canceled by a loss, and vice-versa. Because chess is, in the end, about winning. That's objective, and we all agree to that, otherwise we would go on about great ideas that don't work over the board. So we must all be masochists, or else some may find losses more tolerable than I!

Well, if you lived in America, you'd understand we are a specialist society, and so many people only admire those who can be really good at something. In fact, much of the world is like this. Generalists are dying out.  I am turned off going to the chess club, because it's Carlsen this, Kramnik-that. When I look on Chessbase, it's Anand-this, Aronian-that.

We celebrate the best practitioners, the experts.  Your statement is, in fact, antithetical to how champions like Fischer thought.  I agree with you, however; I think chess (and other things) should be just activities, and if you're good, that's great, but it's more important to just play the game. A club player has more in common with Carlsen than Bill Gates. But who gets to invite Carlsen to play? Bill Gates---another expert in his field. If you're really good at something, you get taken away from all those who love the game, the sport, and you are launched into the world of celebrity, money, and hob-nobbing with rich people who know nothing of your struggle.

This is the best post on chess.com

That seems to presuppose that everyone has a narcissistic need to be admired. Just because people admire Carlsen or Kramnik doesn't stop them just playing their own chess to, whether or not anyone admires them for it.

If there were computers which were truly 'unbeatable', the game of chess would've been solved. This means that a perfect game is currently played or playable. But, this is not the case.

Jion's post is really good, I second it.

unless you are playing random kid's games (think: "sorry" or "life") where simple random events determine the winner and no strategy or intellect at all is required,  every other type of board (and arcade/action) game can be played better by a computer.    You can't out race a machine that can compute the optimal path and follow it.  You can't out-shoot a machine that never misses.  The game makers keep the AI stupid because 1) its cheap and 2) no one wants that level of frustration, but that does not change the fact that the computers *can* be programmed to give 100% performance 100% of the time for many games. 

So, basically, any game that is not significantly based off random luck is pointless...  

I play chess because I enjoy it and yes I enjoy winning more than losing but have had some very enjoyable losses over the decades as well . Now that I am gettin old I also play because it helps to keep my mind active but I still enjoy the game and still enjoy competing in tournies . 

They're unbeatable for us, not for players such as Kramnik, Nakamura, and Carlsen. 

Tomorrow i could start a jogging training. Maybe in 5 years i would still run very slow and only short distance (Elo 1000). Maybe i would run marathon distances in some years with a very decent personal record (Elo 2000) But all i could reach is very far away from professional runners (Elo 2500 and more) and of course more far away from my car (Elo 3300).

Its all about fun and reaching personal goals.