That's true about any game really. If you're good at something then you will enjoy (watching) it. But some games have a steeper learning curve and some games aren't for everyone. Board games in particular will always have limited viewership.
But the main problem with chess is that computers dominate it. So it has lost some of its old luster and magic.
But the main problem with chess is that computers dominate it. So it has lost some of its old luster and magic.
#2
And that, unfortunately, is true of basically every perfect information turn-based non-random game.
And that, unfortunately, is true of basically every perfect information turn-based non-random game.
@JasonNewst @InnateAluminum
The criticism that chess computers somehow hurt the game is like saying forklifts hurt powerlifting. Just because a machine can do it better than humans doesn't take away the excitement of human competition.
If anything, computers have been an integral part of the resurging popularity of chess in the 21st century - from online play to sophisticated methods of training and instant access to millions of master games.
The criticism that chess computers somehow hurt the game is like saying forklifts hurt powerlifting. Just because a machine can do it better than humans doesn't take away the excitement of human competition.
If anything, computers have been an integral part of the resurging popularity of chess in the 21st century - from online play to sophisticated methods of training and instant access to millions of master games.
Computers also address Grischuk's criticism - they help make chess more watchable for the average viewer. Unlike decades ago, now anyone can watch GMs play with an analysis bar, best move arrows and threat arrows for a much better idea of what is happening during a game.
I don't think it's necessarily a problem that computers can beat humans, but I do feel like ubiquitous engine analysis makes chess less interesting to watch - rather than being astonished by the creative and original ideas the grandmasters are coming up with, we just sit there waiting to see whether they'll find the move that Stockfish has already told us is most accurate.
#4
Incorrect analogy. A human can't use a forklift to help them powerlift before going into competition. However, a chess master can analyze using a computer for studying.
I'm not saying everyone has to interpret this as bad. I'm just saying that, as #2 said, it makes chess lose part of its original nature (the stuff that was common during the Romantic era and similar).
Incorrect analogy. A human can't use a forklift to help them powerlift before going into competition. However, a chess master can analyze using a computer for studying.
I'm not saying everyone has to interpret this as bad. I'm just saying that, as #2 said, it makes chess lose part of its original nature (the stuff that was common during the Romantic era and similar).
Thank for the comments guys please subscribe to my YouTube channel for more amazing content, thanks💪
@InnateAluminum Incorrect refutation. In addition to the forklift analogy, there are numerous examples of technology in fitness sports that have resulted in performance gains - from heart rate monitors to advances in biochemistry and nutrition to the use of computers to analyze movement, etc.
The claim that computers ruined the "original nature" of chess is like complaining that the "original nature" of track and field has been ruined because people don't compete barefoot on dirt. Technology has always played a part in the growth of any activity. Historically, if wasn't for developments in communication and transportation the game of chess would not have grown at all.
The claim that computers ruined the "original nature" of chess is like complaining that the "original nature" of track and field has been ruined because people don't compete barefoot on dirt. Technology has always played a part in the growth of any activity. Historically, if wasn't for developments in communication and transportation the game of chess would not have grown at all.
It could be argued that the printing press and communications systems ruined the "original game of chess" because it allowed people to study and prepare for specific opponents - rather than making each game a completely improvisational encounter between players. One might consider that analogy absurd right now because books and high speed communication are normal today... but that's my point. The criticism of computer influence in chess will gradually become more absurd as computers become even more ubiquitous in modern life.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.