Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Why do young GM's give up the game?


  • 20 months ago · Quote · #41

    varelse1

    I remember watching a movie once about a child prdigy named Josh Waitzkin. Whateverhappenedto?

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #42

    gattaca

    uhohspaghettio wrote:

    Again, nonsense. Karpov was a "prodigy at a young age" and still plays regularly and is horrible compared to how he used to be. He keeps playing because he still likes it, how much you like playing is in some ways independant from skill at it. Anand is past his best, Ivanchuk, tons and tons of players who were "prodigies at a young age". 

    gattaca, I've watched the interview where Fischer said that multiple times. It's pretty ironic that you'd accuse me of not knowing what I'm talking about since in fact I have a kind of obsession with Fischer and chess that is unhealthy. I own one book about him Bobby Fischer goes to War, and I've read Endgame also, I'm well aware what Fischer said. 

    Fischer said: "I hate chess", and he also cited players playing by the book also, yes. 

    I'm also very familiar with that Carlsen interview (admittedly this time I didn't bother watching the whole thing).... but none of what you've posted there in any way suggests that he will give up in a few years after he's reached his summit. 

    I think this is worth repeating: Nothing that you've cited or quoted there suggests in any way that Carlsen is going to give up like you stated he will. There is no reason for you to say or to think that.

    Try saying: "other chess players like Morphy, Fischer, Kasparov have given up when in their prime before, Carlsen might do similar". 

    "I don't quite fit into the usual schemes" is one of the best quotations that you're taking from Carlsen in support of your argument? Don't make me laugh.  

    It would be actually more interesting that you give some sources to support your affirmation rather than just putting capital letters everywhere. It doesn't make you more right. At least, I try to give the facts on which I based my assumptions. You said I have no clue about what I was talking, at least I give the source of my presumptions. But you, what are you doing exactly.

    I said Fischer stop to play for not being able to enjoy the game the same way. Did you proove otherwise? No. So where is the nonsense. In your capital letters?

    For Carlsen, my presumptions are based on his own words but sadly I can't remember where I read it. As soon as I find it, I'll post it here.

    You also said there are tons of players who continue to play even after their past time. And I never said otherwise.

    But I tried to explain why some migth stop at an early age. For some players, there is no pleasure left if they can't win they way they did. And that's was the case of Fischer. I suppose then that could be the case for some other prodigies. It doesn't mean all the prodigies have to be the same.

    The fact some migth stop at an early age is in no way opposed to the fact many others would still play even after their prime.

    Please, try to explain me where is the nonsense, show me where is the contradiction?

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #43

    zxzyz

    But I tried to explain why some migth stop at an early age. For some players, there is no pleasure left if they can't win they way they did. And that's was the case of Fischer.

    And perhaps only for fischer. If I was 2650 and I had good  job opportunities - I would not waste my time to become a chess professional. I would not stop playing -- just not give up career opportunities ...

    That does not mean "give up on chess"

    According to your definition, most people on this site have "given up" since they don't play professionally.

    -- If you replace with "Give up on Classical TC Professional chess" you might have a point though. There are simply not enough financial rewards for pursuing a professional career for most.

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #44

    gattaca

    zxzyz wrote:

    But I tried to explain why some migth stop at an early age. For some players, there is no pleasure left if they can't win they way they did. And that's was the case of Fischer.

    And perhaps only for fischer. If I was 2650 and I had good  job opportunities - I would not waste my time to become a chess professional. I would not stop playing -- just not give up career opportunities ...

    That does not mean "give up on chess"

    According to your definition, most people on this site have "given up" since they don't play professionally.

    -- If you replace with "Give up on Classical TC Professional chess" you might have a point though. There are simply not enough financial rewards for pursuing a professional career for most.

    I'm not talking about people on this site, nor about give up on chess but about give up on professional career in the case of Fischer.

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #45

    Genghis_McCann

    A fascinating topic. I think the phenomenon is common to all Artistic endeavours requiring enormous practice, talent and time- and I think chess is more art than sport but that is another topic.

    When I was learning piano, my teacher was a fantastic classical pianist, played on the radio and everything, but he owned a newsagents and practiced on a dummy piano in the back. And of course he taught students including me. Only six pianists in the world make any real money. I think it's the same with art, dance, theatre, chess, and many other creative pursuits. People end up realising, at some point, that their talent is not the be-all and end-all of life, and that there are other options and challenges for bright, talented people.

    I chose not to go into music but 40 years later I still get tremendous pleasure out of playing. I'm sure that GMs still get the same satisfaction from being able to destroy anyone in their club, give blindfold deomnstrations, teach younger players, etc even though they may no longer be in active competition.

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #46

    cabadenwurt

    Genghis_McCann: Your post is a plus 10. Smile

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #47

    blake78613

    zazen5 wrote:

    Look a little deeper at what you learn in chess.  While the game can be fun, it isnt really applicable to modern society.  It is largely tactical, and relationships among pieces arent one of always working together.  

    Also, at higher levels, because the setup of normal chess is always the same, then the person who has more openings memorized and understanding of opening theory, not necessarily the smarter player has a strong advantage.  Once you realize this, chess becomes a chore and really quite boring.

    More applicable to modern society is Go, or wei-chi, than chess.  I come here to play chess 960, and maybe once in a while regular chess, but I consider regular chess to be very very boring.

     In college I knew a Koren, who beat me regularly in go with a 9 stone handicap.  He blamed his country's lack of progress and his own problems in school on go; and thought chess was the better past time and more adopted to modern living.  He was strictly a causal chess player and not too strong.  His main reason for preferring chess was that it took a lot more time to play a game of go then chess.  He also felt  go drained you more mentally (then chess) so that you didn't have any mental reserves for working or scholastic study.

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #48

    Ice_Zyther

    varelse1 wrote:

    I remember watching a movie once about a child prdigy named Josh Waitzkin. Whateverhappenedto?

    He went on to become a world champion in Tai Chi

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #49

    varelse1

    Case & Point!

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #50

    nebunulpecal

    They lack genuine passion for chess. I'm not talking AT ALL about Bluvshtein here, I don't know him well, but there are some young masters who were force-fed with chess when they were kids because their parents thought it's cool. Well, when you're young you absorb the chess quick so you progress rapidly, but some of these kids really had no passion for chess. It's like parents making their kids learn piano. The kid puts up a few hours every day because he thinks that's the way he should do and in a short few years can become pretty good at that. But then, when he gets older, he realizes that actually piano is not his cup of tea and quits. 

    Or like vegetables grown in a green house in the middle of the winter. They look gorgeous, but don't taste anything. 

    The essential ingredient that separates a genuine chess master from an artificial one is creativity and originality. A true master has his own ideas about chess and feels like he "invented" chess. In the past it was customary that any respectable GM would at some point in his career write a book with selected games, in which one could see that GM's specific approach to chess. Now, these kind of books are rare, only the top GM's do that because those are the true masters of the game. The other ones are just apeing (admittedly, very well) the game of the great ones.

  • 4 days ago · Quote · #51

    Fabiogaucho

    There is far, far more money in tennis then in chess. And yet, looking at prize money I once estimated that no more than 250 people in all the world in a given year made enough to make a decent living in tennis. Probably more like 200. 


Back to Top

Post your reply: