Re: The Future of Chess and Getting It "Unstuck"

<marksteere@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:67261f68-becf-4e7e-8dfd-e4d784b0f67b@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Apr 3, 8:22 pm, "David Kane" <davidek...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>> I have never seen anyone provide a single bit of data in
>> sup****t of the theory that chess' popularity is near some
>> inherent limit. Holding that belief, given that high level
>> chess has a number of obvious defects, is nothing more
>> than a mindless defense of the status quo.
>
> I believe, after reading various accounts, that Chess' popularity had
> been declining for decades before there was a boost inspired by the
> famous international competitions, which was then followed by further
> decline.  Then the appearance of Chess on the Internet caused a surge
> in popularity.
>
> There's the added complication of an ever increasing number of other
> quality abstract games to choose from.  But there should be some limit
> to Chess' peak popularity.  For example, the percentage of people who
> play Chess ten times a year or more, in real life or online, will
> never exceed x percent.  I'll hazard a timid guess that x is less than
> 20.  I don't know how near Chess' popularity is to its limit now, or
> even if the peak has already passed, but yes, there should be some
> limit.  And there should be a lower limit too.  Chess' popularity,
> measured as described, shouldn't drop below y percent over the next
> millennium.

My claim wasn't that there is no limit, but that there is no evidence
that we are near the limit. The usual "chess will never be as popular
as [football, food, *** etc.]" is an irrelevancy.