Is Chess a waste of time (for whom?)

I found FMCheckRaiseMate's post extremely interesting and thought-provoking; full of beautiful reflections and suggestive quotes. I am a psychoanalyst and would like to share some psychological reflections that reading this article provoked in me.

In an old booklet (The Psychology of the Chess Player by Reuben Fine) the author began: the chess player wants to kill his father. A bit trancey but interesting.

The father is the bearer of social rule. The child comes out of the world of symbiosis with the mother when he begins to recognize the existence of the third party, well represented by the father. As Britton says, until the child recognizes the existence of the father, he lives blissfully in the fact that the mother is his, because there is no one else in the universe. When he realizes that the strange figure he sees now and then, with the beard and mustache, is not his mother playing a joke on him, but is really someone else, and he discovers that there are more than two of us in the universe, at which point the child will say: the mother is mine.... but what does the one with the beard think? Britton says this is the beginning of scientific thinking. And I think he is right! Is what I think objective? I mean, another person in my place what would he think? And so codes, rules, etc. etc. are born.

Thanks to the Oedipus complex, which exists in all human cultures, the individual will remain a son forever. He will never become the male, or female, Alpha dominant over the pack, able to decide over everything and everyone as he prefers. He will have to abide by codes, rules. He will still be a son forever, having to respect the father and thus the rule.

Are we therefore saying that the chess player underneath is a psychopathic but highly refined one, symbolically achieving his desire to rule the world by imposing his own will, killing his father and becoming the rule himself, through a game that as full of incorruptible rules as chess cannot be?
Yes, exactly! In fact, I believe that chess is a therapeutic game for drug addiction and psychopathy, but that is another matter.

If we take these assumptions (like all psychoanalytic assumptions, destined to remain so) chess would be a waste of time for whom? Certainly not for those who make a living at it, I would say. Nor for those who by immersing themselves in the study of chess forget the evil of living. Certainly Morphy felt he wanted to be a lawyer, to help people. It was better for him that way, perhaps. But when Einstein asked Lasker how he could devote his life to chess, in whose interest was he speaking?

Simple: the interest of the social group.

Altruism is a strong characteristic of humans. What we call work and what we do to earn money is always an action that serves someone else. We are a forced animal species of altruism! In this we are strongly ideological, and if someone tries to evade this rule it is frowned upon. For example, if someone does not want children, he is hounded by parents, uncles, friends, "So when are you going to make a baby!" The group asks the individual to contribute!
After all, even to think that Morphy was wrong to quit because he failed as a lawyer would be a criticism from the point of view of the social group. Maybe Morphy was fine as he was (Fine says no, that he developed a neurosis and might have been better off continuing to play).

In short, "What have you done with your talents?" seems to ask Father Albert, quoting the Bible (Freud did not have much sympathy for Einstein, perhaps because he was a bit too much of a preacher).
I had fun, the chess player will reply.