Question on my Mind...

[Mark Howitt]

So...

Posting this as I was actually thinking about it in nightclub recently... fun night yet surreal I was thinking a bit about this at this time...

Say you're a good chessplayer in UK... someone like Richard Bates who is IM...

You STILL sadly can make little money from it I think. So I guess you have another job... maybe do a bit of chess coaching etc etc...

So... how much time do you spend on chess and do you think it's worth it for you? Like I very much doubt I could ever get to IM level,,, even if I had had a bit more 'luck' my gradings hadn't been messed about... and I didn't take a 'break' from 'competitive OTB chess' for nearly FIFTEEN YEARS...

So yeah... I wonder how much time they allocate to chess and like I guess either consciously or subconsciously they must think the time spent NOT doing a job and getting more money is worth it... and also the time spent playing chess is better than doing other 'hobbies'...

I think I'm posting this too as in near future I will have the choice to make of how much time/money to spend on chess...

Anyway thanks for reading interesting to see what people think!

[MJMcCready]

You need to define what you mean by 'worth it for you. Do you mean worth it financially, spiritually or something else? If you mean financially well we all know there isn't a great deal of money in chess unless you make it to 2700 or something around there.

[Roger de Coverly]

You STILL sadly can make little money from it I think. So I guess you have another job... maybe do a bit of chess coaching etc etc...

Many of the near top British players are amateurs. In other words they have a possibly lucrative job in some other field and play in chess events as a leisure activity, A caveat is that the job should allow plenty of holiday time and to an extent enable the individual to set their own working hours. It's not a coincidence that some players reach a peak of activity and perhaps strength when at university.

[MJMcCready]

Correct me if I am wrong but Luke McShane is a classic example of that.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I would not frame this in quite the way Mark Howitt has (those who have followed his posts will know the context in which he is posting). Roger's post captures the 'making a living' aspect better. But while there are professionals who dedicate their whole life to chess (at different levels) and do make a living from it, this ends up being a lifestyle choice as well as treating chess as a vocation. In contrast, there are examples of top-level chess players who chose to spend their intellectual 'capital' (and time) on other areas, and become experts in those areas as well (sometimes for financial gain, but more usually for the 'reward' of achievement in those areas. There is also a sense that a conscious (or maybe sometime a subconscious) choice has been made at some point that this is more 'meaningful', despite the attraction chess holds. There may be elements of cultural, familial and societal pressures as well, steering people in certain directions. Ultimately, though, many of these choices (made during a lifetime) are individual to the person.

[MJMcCready]

There is the added problem that many top level Grandmasters look down on other Grandmasters who have jobs still, and classify them as amateurs, as was the case, again, with Luke McShane, described by many as an amateur despite his rating and title.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

There is the added problem that many top level Grandmasters look down on other Grandmasters who have jobs still, and classify them as amateurs, as was the case, again, with Luke McShane, described by many as an amateur despite his rating and title.

Referring to Luke McShane as among the strongest amateurs is intended as a compliment. I would suspect he is not entirely amateur either (he presumably gets paid for his newspaper column). Whether or not he gets appearance money and so on is another matter. The term amateur is being used here to refer to the fact that he does not solely make a living from chess. I don't get the sense at all that other grandmasters look down on amateurs who have the GM title. They still fully respect the title and the chess, and are probably in some ways envious of those who have been able to take a different direction. When it comes to professional bodies (such as the PCA and ACP), whether they accept those who are not full-time professionals is another matter (did/do they?). Do chess journalists, for example, form their own professional bodies, or do they join associations or unions of journalists and similar?

[Mark Howitt]

Yeah I know about Luke McShane's job...

He might have like chosen the best path in terms of getting money and being good at chess... I'm sure he gets paid a LOT yet still plays chess... when he WANTS...

Surreal...

This is what I'd like to delve into... what jobs do GOOD chessplayers have...

Money is worthless when you're dead. I have way more than average UK person and am tight with it (earnt 5p an hour for 18 months writing chess novel... and if you really delve into that... well it's not making money at all really taking into account normal expenses)...

So I don't care if I have no money when I'm dead yet still like having financial goals while alive... gives me something to do...

The feeling and knowledge I have is... if you're good enough to be a good chess player (even 2000 Elo) you can be good enough to be doing pretty well in other jobs... I have done...

And if you're like GM smart... well you could make a LOT of money...

Yet I'm actually just curious in the jobs FMs and IMs have... I like the replies so far... for sure the jobs would have to give them a lot of 'flexi time' which you don't get in may jobs...

[MJMcCready]

Many have left chess to make serious money, GM Norwood is another example.

[Chris Goodall]

That IMs can't make a living by playing is a good thing. If we injected sufficient funds into the chess economy that IMs could make a living, you'd just get FMs complaining that they can't make a living, and there are more FMs than IMs. That's what the "Goodall Line" in my signature refers to. The further down the talent pyramid you draw the amateur-professional boundary, the more people will be just the wrong side of the boundary, aspiring to make a living from chess and failing and getting upset and threatening to revolt against the incompetent (read: not made of money) administrator classes.

Could you run this argument in reverse and conclude that the optimal number of professional chess players in England is 0.5, as it was in the late 60s? I think you absolutely could.

[Mark Howitt]

Many have left chess to make serious money, GM Norwood is another example.

Yeah quite a lot have done poker instead too... I've done a bit...

[Mark Howitt]

Because the real deal is... chess is v good mental training...

Prob helped GM Norwood get his skills to get nice and rich...

[Paul Cooksey]

Could you run this argument in reverse and conclude that the optimal number of professional chess players in England is 0.5, as it was in the late 60s? I think you absolutely could.

Almost everyone who makes a significant income from chess is a coach not a player. The 60s a bit before my time, but I suspect most of the coaching then done by teachers in school chess clubs. So a much greater number of chess coaches now.

[Mark Howitt]

Could you run this argument in reverse and conclude that the optimal number of professional chess players in England is 0.5, as it was in the late 60s? I think you absolutely could.

Almost everyone who makes a significant income from chess is a coach not a player. The 60s a bit before my time, but I suspect much of the coaching then done by teachers in school chess clubs.

And you know the real reality...?

The 'average' 'normal' people... will think a lot of regular chessplayers are good at chess and could teach them. Maybe quite a few chessplayers don't have the teaching skills or social intelligence etc to teach though...

Many people have said to me that I am 'good at chess'... I guess you could say I am compared to average person on street who may or not know how pieces move...

There's actually a big coaching market just in that... and plenty of school children play chess... their normal teachers don't work for free...

[Ian Jamieson]

I read a book on happiness once and the author argued that ideally to be happy you need an occupation that allows you to practise mastery i.e. it’s something you can get better and better at, offers you autonomy I.e. you can choose where and when you do it etc and provides you with a purpose. Chess definitely qualifies for mastery, can offer you autonomy depending on how you make a living from chess (and how good you are) and could also provide you with a purpose depending on how you make a living from chess.