[renholder]

>It's all the things he had to overcome/persevere through to get to that moment.

You're demonstrating the OC's point: No one has any context around the kid who lost, it seems; so, for example, did he (or she) come from an equally disadvantaged position? If so, isn't he (or she) worthy of the same accolades and/or help simply for getting to that point, as well?

[waterpigcow]

it seems unlikely that second place came from an equally or more disadvantaged background. chess in general is a pretty exclusionary. sure the kid (tani?) might not have been the worst off kid at the tournament but kids from higher income schools or private schools might have an easier time dedicating time to the study of chess. what's significant to me is the difficulty of being homeless and dedicating time to studying anything, especially something extracurricular like chess. it's possible that second place came from the same place but if so you're kinda calling into question the entire premise of champions right? like caruana and carlsen are essentially the same strength so whats the use of calling carlsen the champion and giving him all the prize money?