Even regardless of most of these stories being false ("Assassinated Alekhine", "Steinitz left to the dogs" - what the heck?), you are making a very weak case here, OP. Sure, some champions had a lot of problems in their non-chess life... But then you have titans like Lasker, Botvinnik or Kasparov, who managed, aside from chess, to commit to many other activities very seriously (Lasker was a full-time mathematician, Botvinnik worked as computer scientist, and Kasparov did a lot in economics and politics), excelling in all - and ending up being exemplary individuals.
Nitpicking like this is not a way to make a sound argument.
You, sir, tell me Capablanca died a wastrel that never trained in his life, yet he died analyzing a chess game? I am stumped.