The Historian wrote:

I think this entire line of argument is flawed until you define
"success in life." As it stands everyone can claim victory based on the
definition of "success in life" they choose. And I agree with you about
chess as servant vs chess as master.

It is a broad target, but correct, until there is a definition of
"success," you turn to its polar opposite, failure, and I look at
failure in life like one Supreme Court Justice viewed pornography, "I
know it when I see it."

But we can ask questions - is Dan Heisman successful, having given up a
good paying job for the uncertainty of chess teaching? I know he
doesn't make the same amount of money, but probably is very happy and
well-adjusted, which makes him a success.

Until someone does some real studies on this - and there definitions
can be made, where the reader is free to disagree - it stays anecdotal
in nature.