This story, in its endless variations(!), never ends: infinite generation, Matthew effect, the one-percent principle etc
Here's a pretty sad/sob story by a top-50 world chess grandmaster I've never even heard of (Nikita Vitiugov).
in a forthcoming book, Vitiugov relates his previous career in Moscow, his work as a coach to Ian Nepomniachtchi in the 2021 world title challenge to Magnus Carlsen, and his thoughts on his England colleagues before this month’s 210-team Olympiad in Samarkand, Uzbekistan. Vitiugov’s main conclusion is that at 39, he has no future in the professional game since his invitations to major tournaments have been limited since his emigration, even though he is still ranked inside the top 50 grandmasters. “Below a 2700 rating, chess doesn’t pay.”
The book is called Chess Metamorphosis -- pretty dope title -- and is a behind-the-scenes story of elite chess told from Vitiugov's vista.
What of the future? He hopes to play in the annual London Classic at Arsenal’s Emirates Stadium, but otherwise his skills will increasingly turn to coaching, where his reputation remains high.
About five years ago, I wrote this reflection on economic returns in industries that are suddenly elevated/in vogue by an order of magnitude or more. Everyone who was elite and making money double-triple-10x their opportunities; everyone who was just on the edges, hanging on, is suddenly propelled into the limelight with tons of opportunities everywhere and income. New people rush in to become the marginal/slightly-negative EV players from before #1553596; the entire pyramid shifts one step up, unleashing wealth for everyone involved.
Do people deserve these newfound wealth they did nothing to amass?
No, not really... but nobody else has a better claim to it. Plus, at some level they worked incredibly hard for something and got to within a hair's breadth of the top-top elite... only to be vindicated by, in chess's case, something as frivolous as the pandemic+streaming+Queen's Gambit popularizing the entire industry. Now there was sponsorship money and BIG prize events and entertainment/educational events everywhere... congrats.
Bitcoin shares a pretty similar work/income landscape here, hashtag @totallyhumanwriter #1513929. Unless you're at the top-top-top, you're not really making money from it... you shouldn't expect to, either: infinite generation, tons of other people want that nice situation, rents rapidly competed to around zero -> thus, most artists loom in poverty. #1547735
Not even a top-46 chess grandmaster can manage to make a decent living from playing competitively... he's stuck coaching, writing books, doing various roundabout things. (Probably making a nice living from that, all things considered...)
...and then once in a blue moon, the entire industry explodes; bitcoin bull market and great debasement trade returns, there's money for everyone and their grandma and our "monster stacks" become enough to live on/start businesses/realize dreams.
= crazy to consider. All you need to do is endure (hope?!) and the thing you devote your life to pays incredibly asymmetric returns.
...or it's all just a selection issue, sampling on the dependent variable blah-blah
Chess and the infinite = #1467035
Perry Mehrling = #1428602
archive: https://archive.md/J1Iqb
This point about negative marginal pay is going to be increasingly relevant, I think.
I dunno, I think it's pretty similar to academia. Just like I don't get paid directly for my research, maintaining a publication record is what qualifies me to teach. I imagine the same is true for some of these chess players who make money coaching, doing videos, or other things
The dynamic I’m thinking about would be more relevant if pay to publish was more prominent and the best researchers made their money directly from publishing.
That would probably require an audience that actually pays to read these journals.