Popularity of Go In 100 Years

[hailthorn011]

There have been several Go popularity topics lately, so I wanted to add a poll. Obviously this is highly a speculative subject, and the popularity level of Go has been called into question several times recently, it seems. So I figured I'd create a poll to see what people thought the landscape would be like in 100 years.

[Fedya]

I don't expect to be playing Go 100 years from now.

[jts]

It's rather difficult to say. I think we're inventing new activities faster than old activities become unpopular, so just as people spend less time on 99% of c. 1912 activities in 2012, such will it be looking back from 2112.

However, go has a fairly good shot at gaining popularity. Go only broke out of east Asia in the last century or so. The spread of other east-west cultural exchanges often goes quite slowly, and then explodes and becomes entrenched past a certain point. (chess, for example, or printing.)

Also, I suspect that once copyrights begin to expire the backlog of excellent games will seriously hurt both the video and board game industries, and in the constellation of old-but-not-glamorous games, go will shine brightly.

[Joaz Banbeck]

I suspect that computers will be stronger than the best humans in 50 years or less, and that the appeal of go will therefore suffer. I expect a slight decline.

The only alternative that I see to this is if some genius figures out another game with the depth and complexity of go, but that cannot be mastered by a computer. In that case, I expect a massive exodus of go players to that new game and a precipitous decline of go.

Ultimately, the barier that we are facing is human intellectual laziness. Regardless of how much exposure the game gets, the vast majority of our companions simply do not like problem solving for its own sake. From their perspective, go cannot compete with whatever is the 22nd century equivalent of reality TV.

[speedchase]

I suspect that computers will be stronger than the best humans in 50 years or less, and that the appeal of go will therefore suffer. I expect a slight decline.

Chess is still popular. Someone else said this, but does the fact that a car can move faster than a human remove the excitement of racing?

Ultimately, the barier that we are facing is human intellectual laziness. Regardless of how much exposure the game gets, the vast majority of our companions simply do not like problem solving for its own sake. From their perspective, go cannot compete with whatever is the 22nd century equivalent of reality TV.

I think that there we always be some people not being intelectually lazy.

[hailthorn011]

I suspect that computers will be stronger than the best humans in 50 years or less, and that the appeal of go will therefore suffer. I expect a slight decline.

The only alternative that I see to this is if some genius figures out another game with the depth and complexity of go, but that cannot be mastered by a computer. In that case, I expect a massive exodus of go players to that new game and a precipitous decline of go.

Ultimately, the barier that we are facing is human intellectual laziness. Regardless of how much exposure the game gets, the vast majority of our companions simply do not like problem solving for its own sake. From their perspective, go cannot compete with whatever is the 22nd century equivalent of reality TV.

Interesting perspective. However, I don't think that a mass exodus would happen even if another game was invented that had a higher depth and complexity. Go is too traditional and cultural for it to be replaced. I think a longer span of time would be needed for a game to replace Go in that manner. Could it happen? Undoubtedly. Obviously I cannot guess what will happen in 100 years, so you could very well be right!

Maybe Go will evolve from a 2D game to a 3D game......and just thinking about that possibility seriously makes my brain hurt.

[palapiku]

Probably more popular because more humans will have the leisure time to play it.

[hyperpape]

Probably more popular because more humans will have the leisure time to play it.

An interesting point, but predictions in the 20s and 30s were that we'd be working an average of 20 hours or less by now. I'm not really sure what will happen in the future.

[Bill Spight]

Probably more popular because more humans will have the leisure time to play it.

An interesting point, but predictions in the 20s and 30s were that we'd be working an average of 20 hours or less by now. I'm not really sure what will happen in the future.

Interesting to ask why we are not working an average of 20 hours per week. Judging from modern hunter-gatherer cultures, our ancestors worked around 15 hours per week. Where did it all go wrong?

[hyperpape]

The traditional economic answer is that as productivity increases, there is a wealth effect that should make consuming leisure more desirable, but there is an opposing force in an increased cost of leisure, since we give up more in wages to gain a bit of leisure. Observation indicates that these effects are equal at the moment.

Alternately, one might note a combination of stagnating real wages for the median worker and/or status competition.

[jts]

It's important to note the difference between the number of hours people work while in the workforce versus the number of hours the average person works. It seems that in general we have been entering the workforce later and leaving sooner, rather than enjoying extra leisure time in shorter workweeks. Indeed, if anything the past decade has seen persistent involuntary underemployment in most of the developed world. But it's hard to measure this too accurately... The occupation of homemaker has largely been privatized in the USA (which means workforce participation has risen since the 1970s) and it's hard to decide how to treat education.

The original departure from the hunter-gathering lifestyle involved immobility making us vulnerable to certain types of parasites and predators that prey on stationary organisms, after systematic gathering led to longer and longer crop cycles. However, the leisure of the hunter gatherer lifestyle is a bit of an illusion - they need to nap almost continuously to conserve energy. To the lethargic that may sound like paradise, to the energetic, like a horrible torment.

[hailthorn011]

The traditional economic answer is that as productivity increases, there is a wealth effect that should make consuming leisure more desirable, but there is an opposing force in an increased cost of leisure, since we give up more in wages to gain a bit of leisure. Observation indicates that these effects are equal at the moment.

Alternately, one might note a combination of stagnating real wages for the median worker and/or status competition.

This whole topic reminds me of Wall-E. I really hope we don't end up like THAT. << Just sayin'.

[Buri]

Greetings,
since human life will be untenable in 100 years as a consequence of our destroying the environment, the only person left playing Go will be Sai.
He gets the last laugh after all.
Cheers,
Buri.

[Suji]

I suspect that computers will be stronger than the best humans in 50 years or less, and that the appeal of go will therefore suffer. I expect a slight decline.

Chess has never been more popular than it is now (computers can easily beat the best humans), and I have absolutely no doubt that Go can do the same.

[Alguien]

The solution is, clearly, playing go at work.

"In this monthly expenses chart I'm plotting the 'Bought' (as B) and the 'Will buy' (as W). I use only 19 of the 20 days in the month to take into account the global crisis and I'm cross referencing the data to last month's to check for advancement. I've placed the chart in the whiteboard so the entire team can contribute with their feedback.

For example, Mr.Johnson there has just made a Ha-Neh, at the head of those two buys.

In gote."