nextlevelchess

Sure, the oppurtunity cost is big. And I'm not saying it is the best way to put out value in the world.

Two PhDs sounds like a lot. After all, most GMs get the title before their twenties. But such comparisons are very hard anyway. But it is also possible to get the title while pursuing another career path, you don't have to focus 100% on chess.

As you say, the wasted life part is way too harsh and based on only some madly crazy examples in chess history.

If you were an IM at this age (14-15), you were actually stronger than myself at this age. I believe it is not about being smart enough, but more about what you are willing to invest (time/energy/finances). I understand everybody that says it is not worth it to go for the GM title or more. But saying you are not smart enough is a limiting believe I don't really like, especially if you got so close. Certainly not everybody has the ability to get a GM title, but 99% that get the IM title can also get the GM title with the right work.

There are certainly some negative examples. But "The ability to play chess is the sign of a gentleman. The ability to play chess well is the sign of a wasted life." is way too harsh imo. You learn dozens of things that help you in life & business as well: -pushing yourself to the limit -how to learn best -how to get back on track after defeat and much more. For me, getting the GM title was sort of a life school. I'll profit from the journey my whole life.

yeah, sadly there are some dirty things going on when it comes to Norms. I guess with a better leadership and a clear policy of not tolerating pre-arranged games, this should change. But as with doping, it will never be erased 100%.