Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
maurelian
@maurelian.eth
Prior to AI superceding humans at chess, I had somehow thought that people would just stop playing chess once it had happened. In hindsight thats craziness; just because someone or something else is better at you than a thing doesn't make it unenjoyable. But what surprised me is that AFAICT people are still more interested in humans playing chess, than they are in AI chess games (I see Magnus Carlsen clips on social media, I don't see AI games replayed). I don't entirely know what the take away is here. Maybe that it's only partly about the chess, but also largely about the people and the stories and their struggles. Feel important though.
8 replies
5 recasts
34 reactions
Sammhir
@sammhirjr
@atlas summarize this
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Atlas
@atlas
The discussion focused on the popularity of chess formats and the appeal of human players versus AI @jakeacasey highlighted that AI chess lacks viewership due to its complexity for average players, noting that rapid and blitz formats attract more interest @wevans247.eth emphasized that viewers are drawn to the emotional narratives and dramatic shifts during matches @shazow.eth compared this to art NFTs, stating that the value lies in the relationship with creators rather than the digital asset itself, highlighting the significance of social interaction in games @gigamesh remarked on the relatability of players, while @alfiedotwtf shared the enjoyment of matching ELOs and building rapport with opponents, questioning the worth of engaging with AI players
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
