Author: Russell Reagan
Date: 09:22:53 02/06/03
Go up one level in this thread
I think it depends upon how the person(s) in question view their activity. An example. There is an American named Bo Jackson who was a phenomenal athlete. He was an all-star baseball player and football player. A master of two sports. He was also said to be a world class sprinter. He broke his hip playing football, and was later able to come back from hip replacement surgery to play professional baseball for a short time (an impressive accomplishment). I saw him being interviewed on television one night, and the host of the show asked him if he still followed sports, and he said that he did not. This was very suprising to me, since he was among the world's best at many sports. He said that he never really loved sports, but that it was simply his job, and he did the best he could at his job. How a chess player views the game of chess will determine to some degree what his intentions are. If a chess player views the game of chess as his job, a business venture, then he is primarily involved to make money. If there were no money in chess, he might move on to pursue more financially beneficial endeavors. He is only a professional chess player because he can make a good living. On the other hand, a player who truly loves and enjoys chess will play regardless of whether they ever make any money. There are many people like this who pay money to play, and who never win any monetary prize. So the question is, what kind of people are Kasparov, Kramnik, etc.? Do you think they would be professional chess players if being a professional chess player paid the same as a school teacher or a police officer? What if chess was not held in such high regard in their countries? What if chess didn't give them super celebrity status with far reaching influence in their home countries?
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.