Is there a point to playing chess anymore?

To clarify, the reason chess is not interesting as a competitive activity to you is because humans have created machines that are better than the best human at chess? That's actually a completely fair point of view. Be advised, however that the following competitive or leisure activities are similarly not worth your time: Running makes no sense since we have machines that go far faster than Usain Bolt. Weightlifting also makes no sense since we have machines that can pick up boats and stuff. Jeopardy! isn't worth playing anymore after IBM built a machine to beat us at that. Air hockey may seem very enjoyable, but machines have us beat at that, too. Heck, don't even bother looking at things when you have the Hubble Space Telescope. So, computers are a lot better than us, at, quite frankly, many endeavors. Console yourself with these facts, though: We made computers. Not the other way around. We still do that quite well. Sure, a computer can beat you at chess, but that same computer can't run, lift, tell you the answer to a Final Jeopardy question on US Presidents, play air hockey, and look across the street. Even better, computers can help you study chess better. You can look at games of all the greats and find games in the 17. Ra3 Flohr variation of the Ruy Lopez as in Kasparov-Karpov, Lyon 1990 (20) using ChessBase, analyze the position with Houdini, and play games on http://Chessclub.com. There's still a lot of joy in any endeavor where you are challenging yourself. People or objects that aren't you might do something better than yourself, but that doesn't make it valuable to you.

Of course. Computers can generate books now, in fact they sell them on amazon. Is there no longer a point in writing books? Chess is the immediate physical expression of intellect, an unparalleled creative outlet. It's not just competitive it can also be almost artistic.

That's equivalent to asking: "is there a reason to become an Olympic sprinter/marathoner when even the slowest cars can beat you?"

Do it if you enjoy it.

Some of these answers really addressed the true nature of the question. It is foolish in my opinion to ask "What is the point of chess if you cannot beat everybody (and everything)?" and not worth answering that question.   However, the questioner was presumably smart enough to know that he was still enjoying chess while he was REALLY unlikely to ever beat everyone in the world, even before Deep Blue demonstrated super-human capability. So what was the real question? Perhaps the question was, "Why did I really stop playing chess?" and perhaps more specifically, "How has (this supposed) computer superiority changed our view of chess?"   Though we try so hard to "calculate" strong moves, the beauty of chess lies precisely there, in the very impossibility of the calculation. Engrossed though we are in rapidly examining options and consequences, the excitement and beauty of chess starts where these mechanics end. We quickly find ourselves leaving the cold world of logic and entering a warmer world of intuition and experiment. The competition becomes a battle of nerve, creativity, and a challenge to balance our aggression and prudence. We see each other's mind, and heart, in the game.   To play chess, one must learn some book openings, and some heuristics of play, and some set pieces for passing pawns, and end games with only knights or bishops. And there is real pleasure in "out-calculating" one's opponent. But like counting cards, that's not the joy of the game. The real game is about doing something intuitive and creative in a situation where calculation becomes impossible.   I worked for IBM for 25 years, and I was privileged to host some events in the UK where people came to see Deep Blue play against a chess master and learn about the technology and the development team. I greatly respect the developers and feel proud to have known them. However I now think that all concerned missed the greatest learning opportunity of the enterprise. We learned a bit more about how to make computers super-human, but we should have learned more about what make humans merely human.   It was a great achievement to make a computer out-do us at the computational game; but all "Artificial Intelligence" should be seen as "Studies in humanity using a process of elimination". The stupid computer did not know who it was playing. It did not know it was playing chess.   I have been playing chess for 3 years every day. My rating has gone down from 1500 to 1100 over that time. I am NOT getting better at calculating good moves, but I am enjoying chess, and enjoying the relationship with my opponents.

You can't shake hands with a computer and then have a beer and discuss your moves, your fears, and your aha moments when you found the move to cripple your opponent. Chess is a human game. The best that man has made, and with the advent of the electronic era, probably the best game he will ever make. A computer may beat you, but it only hurts if you are on TV. And the computer cannot feel or  explain the joy of finding the right sequence to force a mate, win a queen, fork a piece, or find a stalemate against a superior opponent with a smug smile on his face. If your question is purely about professional or master or grandmaster level chess, I would still say that it continues to drive new geniuses like Magnus Carlsen with the same intensity of an Olympic athlete. Chess, like golf, tennis, or any other sport, is also a quest for improving the self. And that journey has its own rewards, computers be damned. Human versus human. Mano a Mano. Real brains with real talent and real limitations, struggling to better the other. That pursuit still remains vibrant and real. The mathematical ability of a computer is just a small blip in the sideline to this glorious game. A freak show, a cold attempt to belittle the emperor of games. But this emperor still has all his finery on, and the the gleaming sword at his side is well-oiled and ready for battle. Nary a touch of rust or irrelevance. To leave chess because a computer could beat you is just to deny your own humanity. And you do not need a promising future in chess to play chess. Ask me. I never had a promising future in chess. I dabbled with it on and off since the age of 10, won some school and college competitions. My father taught me the game, and we had some interesting days when I learnt to beat him. I let it fade away after early childhood, and rediscovered it in college with an intense period of studying openings, middle games and the dreaded endgames when I was about 20, and then let it get away again, not having the energy to go out and find people to play with me. Stupid me. I rediscovered it again last year with http://chess.com to find a universe of players always available to play me. I am hovering between a 1100-1300 rating in blitz and 1400-1600 in the standard mode. My pulse quickens and I whoop with quiet joy when I beat the occasional 1400 blitz player a few oceans and a few thousand miles away. I watch videos made by grandmasters for chess lovers, dissecting the game and describing the passion of discovering a new move on the board, and the sheer exuberance and intensity of the game has returned in spades. As for the computers, they are now aids to the greatest players to help them prepare and discover new avenues to confound their opponents. And to bring chess back to one who lost it along the way.

Every deterministic game with complete information has a "perfect" strategy. What difference does it make how good  the best machine assisted calculation of that strategy is? Worry about this is like saying there is no point to running in 5K races because you can travel 3.1 miles faster in an airplane. So what? You could also play stronger chess moves by asking Magnus Carlsen what to play, or using a computer,  or using a tablebase to play provably perfectly in all your endings. Similarly you could play football better if you put your running back in a tank. These things are all cheating, of course. Don't cheat, play mano y mano, and enjoy the game.

I still have the heretical opinion that, for reasons unknown, Kasparov deliberately threw his sixth game in the second match with Deep Blue.  HIs blunder was falling into a standard opening trap that everyone who plays the Caro-Kan knows.  Even a never-was like me would have had a fair chance of beating him if he'd played that way against me. I also think he made his blunder really obvious and elementary as a signal to watching chess players. I have no evidence for this. It is my best attempt to explain what is otherwise inexplicable. Human understanding of chess is very different from the brute-force way a machine plays. Unfortunately for chess the machine way turns out to be the more effective because even a tiny tactical error can negate the deepest and most perceptive of plans and strategies.  Whether that means that there is no point to playing chess any more is one that each individual has to answer for themselves. The very highest standard of chess nowadays is achieved by pairing a strong GM with a computer.  The GM prevents the computer from choosing a flawed strategy and the computer saves the GM from tactical error. A few years ago I'd have advised you to switch to Go (Wei-Chi, Igo, Baduk) but that is no longer such a great option.  It had seemed that even middling strength Go-players would always be able to beat the silicon versions, but we now have programs of Amateur 6-Dan strength (that is equivalent to at least IM strength in chess, and good enough to annihilate most amateur Go players and give professionals a hard game).

Adding to Zachary's answer, it is definitely an art form.  Personally, I don't play to win, I play to gain an intimate familiarity with my opponent (the win is just a bonus! ;).  You'd be surprised how much you can learn from someone by playing chess with them.