I think it's a nice topic for discussion: would you rather pursue academic learning or strive to be a top player of a game?
In recent times, the most lucrative (non-sport) games to be a pro in are arguably some e-games with global leagues. The best players (a tiny percentage) make considerable money out of it. Such games include rts like Starcraft and AOEIIDE.
But another example would be the boardgame, chess. Again you have a global league and prestige/titled/paid events, with the top players making at least a few tens of thousands of dollars per event (and there are numerous events, apart of course from the candidates and ultimately the championship).
But with chess - and I assume it's analogous with those e-games - a few famous players have spoken about it all being meaningless in the end and "a waste of time". Those include former champions, like Bobby Fischer. Here is a very short clip, Caruana is a famous current player (not a champion, but one of the few who did get rich playing chess)
He was reacting to a comment by the interviewer, that "many talented players are lost because they choose to pursue university studies and abandon chess", a view which he doesn't agree with (thinks it's the other way around).
I agree with his sentiment. While chess requires dedication, you aren't discovering anything outside the very limited world of chess itself - assuming you will even get to discover something new and then add to chess theory. It is a very self-contained endeavor, similar to being a pro-player in sports, just a bit more prestigious (for better or worse). It's not something where your knowledge can translate to fields outside of it, nor a field where your growth is exponential. Last but not least, for decades now the best players are computer engines, and humans merely compete for ceremony.
This is in contrast to fields like math or science, where the room for expansion is vast and (imo equally importantly) so is the room for interconnecting knowledge. So in that respect, assuming we avoid a nihilistic view where nothing matters and all is equally unimportant, it can be said to be more meaningful to pursue.
In recent times, the most lucrative (non-sport) games to be a pro in are arguably some e-games with global leagues. The best players (a tiny percentage) make considerable money out of it. Such games include rts like Starcraft and AOEIIDE.
But another example would be the boardgame, chess. Again you have a global league and prestige/titled/paid events, with the top players making at least a few tens of thousands of dollars per event (and there are numerous events, apart of course from the candidates and ultimately the championship).
But with chess - and I assume it's analogous with those e-games - a few famous players have spoken about it all being meaningless in the end and "a waste of time". Those include former champions, like Bobby Fischer. Here is a very short clip, Caruana is a famous current player (not a champion, but one of the few who did get rich playing chess)
He was reacting to a comment by the interviewer, that "many talented players are lost because they choose to pursue university studies and abandon chess", a view which he doesn't agree with (thinks it's the other way around).
I agree with his sentiment. While chess requires dedication, you aren't discovering anything outside the very limited world of chess itself - assuming you will even get to discover something new and then add to chess theory. It is a very self-contained endeavor, similar to being a pro-player in sports, just a bit more prestigious (for better or worse). It's not something where your knowledge can translate to fields outside of it, nor a field where your growth is exponential. Last but not least, for decades now the best players are computer engines, and humans merely compete for ceremony.
This is in contrast to fields like math or science, where the room for expansion is vast and (imo equally importantly) so is the room for interconnecting knowledge. So in that respect, assuming we avoid a nihilistic view where nothing matters and all is equally unimportant, it can be said to be more meaningful to pursue.
Last edited: