This is very relevant. In the past, Chess was the highbrow game in the Western world--the one played and esteemed by those who believed themselves to be above the median. Becoming good at Chess was therefore a means to impress those people, and in turn everyone impressed by the opinions of those people. If you were good at Chess, you had at least one socially redeeming quality.
There was a brief period where the ultra-intelligent switched to the highbrow game of the Eastern world, Go, likely due to its greater difficulty at grandmaster levels, and its well-established handicapping system that allowed for entertaining games between people of different skill levels.
Now, there are thousands of games played by elites, and none of them have such a clear advantage that anyone would put their leaderboard position on their resume. I already know how to play Chess well enough to let my boss win (without making it obvious that I threw the game), and I have plenty of other games that I can play when I actually want to have fun.
So why would I spend any more time practicing just that one game? I could try to improve my Go ranking, or play Hive, or build a new M:tG deck, or get better at Risk.
Many of the reasons people had in the past to play Chess well are no longer applicable exclusively to Chess.
That 1859 article-writer is lucky he lived before computers were invented.
His head would have exploded in moral outrage, from all the people engaged in non-productive amusements, to the general detriment of society.
Those who attempt to make other people ashamed of having fun are just the worst. I catch myself being judgmental and snarky sometimes, but in keeping with the nerd code, I have never intentionally tried to make someone else feel bad about themselves for liking something I don't like. My personal niche obsession might be infinitely superior to yours in all possible ways (in my opinion), but that doesn't make you a bad person. It just means you're from a different nerd tribe.
Shame. Axis and Allies man. Choose the highbrow games of each category!
I guess DOTA is the "highbrow" game of the video game world, at least as far as prize pools and money. Maybe fighting game players are more elitist (but they tend to back-up their status with extremely in-depth understandings of the game... at the frame-by-frame level)
Pokemon also has a very dedicated following, and is relatively "high-brow" at least within its own community.
There was a brief period where the ultra-intelligent switched to the highbrow game of the Eastern world, Go, likely due to its greater difficulty at grandmaster levels, and its well-established handicapping system that allowed for entertaining games between people of different skill levels.
Now, there are thousands of games played by elites, and none of them have such a clear advantage that anyone would put their leaderboard position on their resume. I already know how to play Chess well enough to let my boss win (without making it obvious that I threw the game), and I have plenty of other games that I can play when I actually want to have fun.
So why would I spend any more time practicing just that one game? I could try to improve my Go ranking, or play Hive, or build a new M:tG deck, or get better at Risk.
Many of the reasons people had in the past to play Chess well are no longer applicable exclusively to Chess.