Chess as Esport: An Inevitable Decline

Chess has long been described as a marriage between art and science – a pursuit that rewards calculation and logic, but one that also expresses the personalities of its practitioners. For centuries, chess has remained largely unchanged and its appeal has endured. Chess greatness, throughout cultures and eras, has almost invariably been connected with the idea of genius. More than this, the game has occupied a prominent place in shaping culture around the world, arguably reaching its pinnacle in 1972 when Bobby Fisher and Boris Spassky represented the USA and the Soviet Union, respectively, in the World Chess Championship. The champion would earn their respective superpower the reputation as the other’s intellectual superior.

In recent years, however, the marketing of chess to the world has undergone a dramatic transformation – from being presented as a timeless game associated with classicality and intellect into a modern esport. While this modernization has brought new energy and enthusiasm to the game and has expanded its player pool and audience, I argue that this sudden and fundamental change in the way chess is communicated and shared will have negative effects on its long-term survival in the mainstream, if it is not tempered at least in part.

Chess’s transformation to esport has three main features that I think will be most negative for its longevity. These are faster time controls, instant analysis provided by chess engines, and the trend toward both professional and casual chess being played on monitors rather than across the board from an opponent.

Faster Time Controls

For most of chess’s history, master-level games have been played at very slow time controls. There is also a rich history of recording chess games using chess notation. It is because of this combination of both deep thought and meticulous recording that each successive generation of chess players and fans have been able to stand on the shoulders of their predecessors.

Fast forwarding to today, games are still recorded, but faster time controls have become the norm, on both the professional circuit and in casual chess. I believe the reason for this is the shorter attention span of audiences that have so much more competition for their attention than did generations past. But causation aside, chess will suffer both in substance and in its appreciation by fans in the long-term if this is not addressed. Shorter games produce fewer creative or novel ideas. All chess fans know the creative genius that is Mikhail Tal, the dynamic aggression that is Garry Kasparov, and the boa constrictor that is Anatoly Karpov, but far fewer fans now can associate even the most well-known players of today with any particular style. Could this be because the modern game has favored a more universal approach? It is possible, but I find it unlikely to be the main reason for this.

Instant Analysis

One of the most profound changes in the chess world has been the rise of powerful chess engines. While undeniably useful for training and analysis, they have fundamentally altered how players and fans interact with the game.

In the pre-engine era, analyzing a game was often a multi-person and thought-intensive exercise. Friends or club members would gather to dissect a master game, discussing possible alternatives and variations. This process deepened people’s understanding and appreciation for the game’s intricacies. Today, engines instantly deliver the “best move,” bypassing the need for critical thinking or debate. This shift risks turning chess into an exercise of passive consumption rather than an active exploration of human ingenuity.

Less IRL Competition

The last major problem with the new approach to modern chess is that most games are played online rather than over-the-board. There are even many professional tournaments conducted with players competing in the same room, but each in front of their monitor. I believe this removes the essential element of human interaction from the game.

This type of interaction with the game renders your opponents faceless and nameless, and takes away the feeling of sharing the game with your adversary. It also obviates the need for players to conduct a post-game analysis together, which has long been a great tradition of the game. While, of course, it wouldn’t make sense to recede from the era of online chess, which has provided people with the ability to play many more games than ever before. But at the very least, tournaments of any significance should be held in person and over-the-board.

But There Are Benefits . . .

The transformation of chess into an esport is not inherently negative. In fact, it has revitalized the game, introducing it to new audiences and ensuring its relevance in a fast-changing world. However, it is crucial to strike a balance between embracing modernity and preserving the essence of what makes chess special.

The modernization of chess has undeniably broadened its appeal. Platforms like Twitch and YouTube? have turned chess into a spectator sport, attracting audiences who might never have otherwise engaged with the game. Moreover, this new approach aligns with modern consumption habits. Traditional chess broadcasting – long games with minimal commentary – would struggle to captivate a modern audience, whereas chess streams are lively, interactive, and often feature shorter, fast-paced formats like blitz and bullet chess.

Lastly, this shift has shattered traditional barriers. Today, fans can watch Carlsen or Nakamura play live, listen to their thought processes, and even interact with them in chat or through play. This unprecedented access has fostered a sense of community and connection that was unimaginable in previous eras.

Final Thoughts

The appreciation of deep, complex positions with enough time to examine them, less computer-led analysis, and more in-person competition must remain central to the chess experience. This can be achieved by favoring slower time controls for tournaments with prizes and rating points, turning off the engine during commentary and training, and mandating over-the-board chess in tournaments.