Why do strong players stop playing chess

There are a lot of strong chess players who just quit the game and stop playing regularly.  i was wondering why they quit after spending all those hours studying and trying to get good and have a high rating.

Josh Waitzkin (he even had a movie and a book about him)

Tal Shaked

Joel Lautier

Maxim Dlugy

Bobby Fischer

Ferdinand Hellers

Alex Woijtkiciez

David Arnett  

or any people who get to 2300 or 2400 strength

vinay bhat

Read his book The Art of Learning to get his reasoning.

Paul Morphy was the strongest player on the planet and quit the game (in disgust) when other masters around the world refused to play him, even when he offered them pawn odds and white.

A few years after he left the game, world championship matches started but many did not consider the winners to be true world champions until Morphy's death years later.

Harriet Hunt.

I don,t think they give up chess, just find other ways of making money.

imirak

Morphy did not quit in disgust when others refused to play him; he first retired at age 14 because he considered chess to be a childhood thing.  He came out of retirement at 20 to play in the 1857 American Chess Congress (at the urging of his mother and uncle), then played all who were worth playing in Europe, then returned to the US and set unacceptable terms to all other players in order to be finally done with the game.  Steinitz even travelled to New Orleans to meet Morphy, but Morphy set the condition that they could talk about anything but chess.  His two years of meeting and playing chess professionals convinced him that chess should never be a profession, only a hobby.  BTW, after Morphy's return, Paulsen tried many times to get Morphy to play a match at pawn-and-move, but Morphy always refused.

maybe he did not like people seeing his childhood on tv

Burn out would be a number one reason in my opinion. The other would be accomplishing what they had set out to do. Something that is perhaps overlooked at times is, lack of ability to make a good enough living, unless you are a top GM, but while having quite a few expenses, coaching, travel, tourney fees, etc.

Reuban Fine quit when he may have been the best in the world to pursue a career in psychology.

I don't think that any chessplayers usually play chess to make money.

They probably grow older and start to decline in playing strenth (Anand?)

I imagine that playing top level chess is very grueling and at some point you ask yourself what in the hell kind of job is this?  Although you travel to nice locales you're always playing the same players, and worrying about some obscure opening prep from your opponents, and if the 10 Elo points you lost will result in loss of invites. Also, what kind of retirement and disability plans do these players have?   

I was disappointed when Tal Shaked quit playing.  I beat him in a simul in Phoenix almost 20 years ago, and after that I always hoped he'd become world champions someday... so I could say I beat the champ! 

Maybe some become bored with chess and move on to something that they find more interesting.

I suspect that most chess players below the top 10 +/- discover sooner or later that chess just doesn't pay the bills unless you live very modestly and do a lot of teaching.  And the bills have to be paid, since living in a cardboard box under a freeway overpass is not conducive to improving one's chess game.  That generally involves getting a job (and even teaching chess is a job in this sense) and that takes time away from serious chess improvement.  Alas, the "little time to play and study" effect is worse the stronger a player is.  That's just reality.

So at that point, I suspect a lot of strong chess players give up on chess and get on with having a normal life.  Living like a student in one's early twenties is OK, but it becomes increasingly less acceptible for most of us as time goes on.  The really passionate ones may continue to play competitively (or keep it as a hobby), but they pretty much have to accept that rapid inprovement (or even just maintaining one's playing strength) is no longer practical.

Also, one's interests (usually) change with time, perspective, and maturity.  Chess might be a youthful passion, but passions can and do fade.  If passion for chess fades, hopefully another one takes its place;  yet either way that does not bode well for someone remaining in competitive chess.

So why do so many (if not most) strong players quit?  Life, maturity and reality seem to provide all the explanation necessary.

By that logic there should be more 2700s than there are 2600s and 2500s.

The great one, BF, quit because he'd accomplished the greatest thing, beat the best of the Russians, Spassky.  There was no other place to go.  He'd become disgusted with, in his mind their cheating, discussing and collaberating against him between games and some of the rules to play for the championship.  Then he got paranoid about how he thought everyone was out to get him.  That's why HE quit.

I agree with Morphy, it's a weird profession for an adult.  Personally I think it seems a horrible job.  It's bad enough losing on here, imagine being Vishy after missing that winning move against Carlsen.  Yes, I wouldn't blame anyone giving it up if they saw an easier way of making a living.

Perhaps fear of becoming a Fischer or a Morphy? The American chess jinx probably still hovers over somewhere.

Just kidding. It's just like being a concert pianist these days, not so lucrative except you are Yuja Wang.

Even then, 'concert pianist' is hotter than 'chessmaster' :)

Why do weak players start?