Why are there no more exhibition games between top players and computers? The 1997 match between Kasparov and Deep Blue is likely the most famous chess match in history.  This is because it was ground breaking -  for the first time ever a computer had beaten the best player in the world.

The complete history of man versus machine contests is on Wikipedia, and it suggests that people lost interest after Kramnik lost 0-4-2 to deep fritz in 2006.  Since 2007 or 2008, there has not been another serious match.

Is this just because computers are so much better now?  What about odds matches?  I know Rybka on a regular PC managed to draw a Grandmaster with white, where white was missing a rook, and black was missing a knight.  Do people just find such matches boring? 

Is there just no interest in watching a player such as Magnus Carlsen vs Rybka, or is it just that the players would never agree to it?  (Or both)
There are a combination of answers to this question. I will answer in what is, in my opinion, descending importance.


It's just boring now. Initially this was a case of human pride. A few decades ago it was a commonly held belief that no computer could ever perform at the master level or beat a grand master. It quickly became apparent that this was not the case. Due to the exponentially increasing power of computer hardware and sophistication of engine development grand master after grand master fell as systems went from needing to run on specialized hardware to beat a world class player to being able to run on a modern $1500 USD laptop. Notice that the rise of the Intel Core processor seems to fit with your time frame for lack of interest.
In the developed world we have become accustomed to the fact that computers can out-perform humans in nearly any field and I think most people just accept the fact that narrow AI will eventually have a place in every field - even if most don't have the vocabulary to express the idea in that way. Narrow (or Weak) AI is artificial intelligence that has expert, human level ability in only a single thing, such as chess. Strong AI is the boogieman of the Terminator movies and the Matrix.
Because of number 1 and number 2 there is no money in it. IBM put a lot of money into the Deep Thought/Deep Blue matches for PR reasons. Now it's Watson and language. And if there is no money, who's going to agree to play? 


AI has moved on to driving cars and diagnosing cancer and heart disease. Chess was only ever just a stepping stone to more important things that can make money.