Why do young GM's give up the game?

)))))))))))))))))) if you are asking seriously, he is half-jew (father) and half-armenian (mother)

You are completely wrong in every way possible. You have absolutely no comprehension of what constitutes basic chess skills. Memorization and opening theory only matter to some degree at very high level chess AT classical time controls and longer.

You are basically not enjoying chess because you have not leaned the game properly. From your level, you need to be very good at tactics to improve, not memorize  opening theory.

What does "applicable to modern society" mean ? coperation ? Conformity? hmmm!

Have you played blitz/ rapid or slow blitz with incremental time controls?

THe GM is not pursuing professional chess -- I bet he would be playing online fast games which are very popular and very enjoyable.

Don't sterotype chess to classical time control chess otb between top gms who prepare using computers ..Rapid chess and blitz are far more popular

If you enjoy chess960 - you should enjoy regular chess just as much.

Fischer stopped to play because chess became more about techniques than creativity. When the chances to win decrease, one stops to like the game; What Fischer loved to win maybe more than the game itself. Same for Magnus Carlsen who will probably stop as soon his opponents will be stronger enough to make him feel chess more like a hard work than a pleasure.

It's possible for a young person to realise there is more to life.

 And a not so young one.

genius!

Concincidentally, there's a fairly recent article in the Huffington Press that's related: 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lubomir-kavalek/what-is-the-best-age-for_b_2072908.html

"The age of 22 seems to be significant. Professional players are often born at this age and chess becomes a major part of their lives. They begin to stabilize their play. At the same time, a lot of talented players leave the game. They usually finish their studies and look for jobs." - Kavalek

Next time you comment, try to do some research before.

1) Fischer about creativity in chess:

Fischer: 'The *Old* Chess Is Dead'

Bobby Fischer once famously remarked that "chess is dead". What he meant was that so much had been discovered about the game that creativity and innovation were waning.

Q: Is there a chance that you will play chess again? A: Only Fischer Random -- I don't play the old chess any more. The old chess is dead, it's been played out.

and later continued

Q: Do you follow chess at all? A: I follow the old chess, I follow all the pre-arranged matches, like the last Kramnik - Kasparov match [October 2000]. At the highest level it is all pre-arranged, move by move. You have very interesting, beautiful pre-arranged games being created by very intelligent players, working with computers, working in teams. I have no objections to people creating such games, but they must say these are pre-arranged games, but they must not claim that they are finding the moves over the board. I have learned so much from these pre-arranged matches and all these cooked-up notes, they're wonderful. But they are fake, they are flawed.

2) Carlsen about the pleasure of playing:

Magnus Carlsen – 'I don't quite fit into the usual schemes'

I’m a professional chess player, and if that’s the case then I should do all that I'm capable of to fulfil my potential. I like to win and I strive for the best possible results… At the same time, I still manage to get a lot of enjoyment from playing! During a game I cease to think about the result as I become so enthralled by what’s happening on the board…

In terms of this tournament I recall two games – against Gelfand and Kramnik. I simply loved it when we got such unconventional positions! If every game could turn out as interesting as those I’d just be delighted. But chess, alas, doesn’t only consist of creativity.

And would your attitude to those games have changed if they hadn’t ended as well for you from the point of view of the result?

The result’s always important, of course, but I’m talking about getting pleasure from the game.

Are you talking about abstract pleasure from the game or about the ability to turn the course of the game in your favour?

Above all I like to resolve unconventional tasks at the board. Perhaps that’s why I don’t really like studying the opening – everything starts from the one position.

3) Conclusion

Hence both in case of Fischer and Magnus, the pleasure to play come from the unconventional positions; if a postion has been played out to the extent of a pre-arranged game, there's no pleasure left for these players.

Fischer says himself he stops playing because chess game are now pre-arranged because of all the preparations.

For Carlsen, once he'll feel that all positions he'll try to play will be too more conventional to his taste, he'll stop too.

Since Carlsen like Fischer relies heavily on his talent to win, his chances to win logically decrease when the game is more about techniques than pure genius. He can't express himself the same way; it's logic then the pleasure and the interest for the game decrease.

Now returning to to your comment.

Let's see that.

We are not talking about the vast majority but about young prodigies who becomes GM at a young age.

Magnus Carlsen – 'I don't quite fit into the usual schemes'.

Chess champs Bobby Fischer and Magnus Carlsen on 60 Minutes

Magnus Carlsen, tells Bob Simon that winning a chess match is more than just defeating your opponent; it's destroying him. "I enjoy it when I see my opponent...really suffering," Carlsen said with a wicked grin. "If I lose just one game...I just really want to get revenge."

So yes, I do have a clue about what Carlsen will do. He'll stop to play when he could no longer destroy his opponents the way he usually does.

Nonsense. I had an opinion sort of similar to yours in the past, but trying

the different chess variants at http://www.pathguy.com/chess/ChessVar.htm

unexpectedly I found out that the classic chess variant basically is one the best and more harmonious among them. There is a reason why this variant had been chosen centuries ago and it's still played nowadays worldwide by millions of people.

First of all, it's extremely hard to make money playing chess, especially if one lives in a country where the game is not popular enough. Secondly, most chess players are rather ambitious, so when they reach a certain ceiling (temporary, or permanent - based on lack of talent), they become frustrated and quit. Thirdly, some parents are too hard on their kids and make them train all day long. At some point the person grows up and understands that s/he doesn't really love chess. Fourthly, there are all sorts of health issues. And so on.

Natalia, how much do you make per hour invested in your profession? So your income divided by the hours you put in it?

Often in these creative professions it is all or nothing. You become the absolute top, publish books, give speaches, get quite rich... but below top it is very difficult...

Because you have to have no opinions that displease the mighty Kirsan and his flying-saucer robots.

That's what Valery Salov found anyway.

What happened? i know Salov hasn't played any FIDE events since 2000 but i thought he just gave up..

because it is way too hard to make any money soon i think. as stated, many players make sure to play against people not too far below their rating, which makes it hard for any 2600 player to break through to 2700+, since he can only play with 2600-. This 'divides' the top i think. IMO, 2700 players should be a little more sportive towards other players and just play with them.

I love how you essentially took the words right off the wikipedia page for Bobby Fischer

I think the reason is simply that improvement becomes exponentially hard. At class level 1 year of work should make you improve a couple of hundreds points. At GM level, even admitting that you've not reached the max of your natural abilities, a tremendous work would make you improve a negligible amount of rating, if at all. So of course very few people would find it worthwhile.

You're supposed to play chess just because you enjoy it, but honestly, how many of us would keep playing if not motivated by the desire to get better?

Then why did they start playing professional chess in the first place, when they "know" there is something better ?

Makes sense. :-) Must have been hard for them to realize that chess isn't exactly the holy grail to self-fullfillment. :-D

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