Posted by Jim Daniluk on August 17, 2008, 16:21:50, in reply to "Re: Congratulations Victor Kaminski !!"

Ken Kurkowski wrote: Is there really a difference between someone who spends six hours a day studying chess, and someone who spends the same time working on, say, a gymnastics routine? Hi Ken. At the risk of further opening this can of worms, I would argue that there IS a difference. An Olympic athlete will know conclusively by about age 25 (or much sooner in some sports) whether they have what it takes to compete at the highest level. At most they will train for one more 4 year cycle before giving up and moving on to another career. Their bodies will give them no choice. A Chess player will not start losing strength until well into their 40's, when a career change (or family plans) becomes much more problematic. U.S. Grandmasters visiting Alberta have told me many stories of aging Grandmasters (names we know)who are living in terrible poverty every day. When an Olympic athlete moves into the job market their skills are given great weight. They can also do coaching or broadcasting. A Chess Players skills carry much less weight. I am not suggesting this is fair, only true. I am all for younger players taking up Chess and trying to excel. It is a great game and teaches important life skills. The Problem seems to come when a Player exhibits excellent talent but lacks that "something" to put them in the top echelons. This is where the quote "Chess is too serious to be a game, and not serious enough to be a vocation" comes into play (I can't remember who said that).Such Players often get lost trying to reach that next level and wake up in their 40's with nothing. I'm aware of cases where they've squandered University degrees including Law degrees.