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.
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?