Chess as a career

most people are like that, thats why great people are so few and mediocre people are so many. Its a choice of life, if you can live with it being just gear in the clock because you chickened out and never be able to achieve greatness because you never take risks, its your life.

Chess as career will be very difficult. Make sure you have a plan B first before taking this step. Only a chosen few have been successful in this field....and that means the odds are against you. All the best.

Hmm, of course, that was all down to his hard work...

I go with TetsuoShima on this one. If you need to do it, do it good.

But always keep an open mind to where the road leads you. It doesn't have to be the first goal you set in your mind. No plan B, but don't hesitate ending in B, C or whereever your understanding of the road leads you.

Take the opportunity and go for it.

well he has beaten ulrich who was also doped, also i dont believe that doping alone will make a mediocre cyclest beat a really good one, it probably just gives and edge over the other really good ones. If he were really not good, he probably would have died heart attack because of exhaustion or somethin like that.

LOL...actually my reading suggests that Lance Dopestrong may have actually gotten cancer because of his drug use...payback is a bitch.

...the whole "Lance was the greatest because he beat x and y, while x and y were on drugs as well"...that crap just does not sell me. Lance was a cheat and a lier who got what he deserved, and so should all others who use illegal methods to get ahead...no matter what field.

i guess you are right though

I don´t know too much about cyclism, but I remember having read something like that Armstrong got very mediocre results before cancer, and he just got good after the recovery, making it even more suspicious.

It was really like that? He was not a "star" before?

when did he get cancer again?? im pretty sure he won several tour de france before that.... 

Look, we know that this is a stupid thread, and that anyone 30+ who thinks he can become a professional chessplayer when he hasn't even achieved Class B is delusional or trolling.

But getting good at something like chess or music is not an all or nothing proposition. All the masters, the majority of the IMs and many of the GMs all have careers other than chess. Their careers didn't hinder their pursuit of chess. On the contrary, careers gave them food, clothing, shelter, security, and enough money to travel to tournaments.

Sure, the top of the top like Carlsen, Anand, and Kramnik have turned chess into a paying career. But the "lower level" GMs who try to make a living at it exist on a knife-edge of financial survival. They spend a boatload of cash traveling to, say, the World Open, and have to pay for lodging and meals and entry fees. Then they hope for the big cash prize that comes with clear first. And they come in tied for second or third--if they're lucky. So at the biggest money tournament in the world they don't even cover their expenses. Even those guys have to rely on simuls and teaching to pay the rent.

It ain't fun, and it ain't secure.

Better to have a good solid career (after you get done being a graduate student in whatever course of study requires you to still be in school at 30) and play good chess in the evenings and weekends.

I do believe in playing the game by the rules, otherwise is it not good for yourself. - Unless the rules are not fair yet you have to play the game.

You can only learn from playing chess when you use only your own brains. It is also required if you want to know if you could start a career in it. You can make decisions at the start of any career. I was reasonable in biking, but I would never pursuit such a career, because there was too much doping involved and I did not want to do that with my body. What I understand from the story of Irontiger is that he did not have enough intrinsic ambition to pursuit a career in chess. Good decision.

My parents wanted me to be a professor. I didn't. Not because I don't like science, I do, but because I am not apt for the scientifical world as I would have to align my own opinion with others.

But if you have such a concreate passion, you can try it. Next to the winners stand a lot of people who did not win like the winners. And there are a lot of people who made the same or even more effort in trying to get there. I don't like it when people do something, because they want to win badly, but I like it, when someone is doing it for the love of the game like Ivanchuk for instance.

It seem most of the people who are saying no want a certain and secure future.

They "prefer a handful of "certainty" to an entire wagon full of beautiful possibilities." 

Someone said something about 'a life': For those who fight for it, life has a flavor the sheltered will never know.

OK. If money is important to you, play it safe. Go join Goldman and Sachs. You can play with gold bullions all day long.

But if you think, and you know, that if you try and you will fail, and you are not afraid, then go.

You can't measure somethings in life. No instrument can detect it, no Govt or business can buy or sell it, the bean-counters will tell you it does not exist, the archeologists will show you the frozen bodies.

But in the end only you can say if it is worth the risk. Take for instance the case of Mandela: we don't know how many died supporting him. It was crazy to follow him. They never said,"Is it worth it?"

So somethings cannot be quantified. You have to be a human being to know what it means. 

So if you are worried about these things, then don't stress yourself out. You can follow the middle course, or just take the advice, and do something where you will make some money, save for your retirement, and pass your days.  That is a good life; you haven't harmed anyone, and you have friends and family. You've done your part.

This is like the games of Botvinnik. Slow and sure.

As for the crazy ones, like Tal and co. Play your moves if it makes you happy.

There is  beauty in hope and courage, there is the beauty of  dignity in failure, there is beauty in loss. Nothing is bad, it is all good.

These things can't be measured. You have to believe and take a risk. But it is dangerous territory, if it scares you, don't go.

But to those who want to, tread carefully and I wish you well.

I don't understand how standing with Mandela is equivalent to playing chess

To quote Anand, I belive: Today, if you are not GM by 14 - forget about it!

i think he was talking about his level, otherwise it would make no sense

Sounds like talking about getting to the top 10 players or something? Clearly we aren't aiming near that high.

I agree with u.

To join G&S is incredibly difficult, it would be a great achievement just to do that. That´s not really just a plan B.

Some people make a living of chess without ever becoming a GM. While you might need to be a GM at an early age to get to the top level (arguable) I don't see why that would make it impossible to have chess as a career. I'd recommend to keep chess as a hobby to get more experience and becoming a better player before thinking about having chess as a career though, but this is merely my opinion.