[permo-w]

being the top chess grandmaster is no guarantee of sanity. to take the most famous 3, Fischer, Kasparov and Carlsen:

- Fischer was always a bit of a paranoid arsehole, but he went completely off the rails after he retired. I won't go into specifics, but it's a quite interesting read

- Kasparov has never seemed the world's most sane man, but then he's from a radically different culture

- Carlsen is as far as I know quite sane, but from watching his streams I never really got the impression that he was particularly level-headed, or even just a pleasant person. take for example this whole debacle; even if he is right, which he may well be, he hasn't been exactly mature or sportsmanlike in dealing with it

if you have the singularity of mind to get to such a high level in anything - especially a solo sport like chess - I would speculate that there's a high chance of other things being missing. even if there isn't, the environment of fame and power once you get there seems pretty harsh on the mind

[nurettin]

Fischer was a reasonable, intelligent person. His manners got a lot milder once he got old.

Kasparov is probably the most mature of them all. He got into politics in the worst possible country and somehow survived, which tells me that he knows how to negotiate with people who are hostile towards him and he still beats super GMs to this day.

Magnus likes to joke around claiming that he is the best, but overall he is/was the nice kid of chess, always kind and respectful towards everyone. And even humble and level headed when he loses. This whole cheating scandal revealed a face of him that the world had never seen before.

[permo-w]

Fischer was a raving paranoid anti-semite who couldn't maintain a human relationship of any variety for practically his entire life. intelligent, yes. reasonable, no.

Kasparov I don't know too much about, but I know he's taken some very odd stances and positions over the years, and as far as I know concluded that he wasn't cut out for politics because he (in more or less words) lacked the social skills

Magnus is actually the best, so is it really a joke if he says it? but that's not really what I'm talking about. I've watched his streams, and it's always seemed like just below the surface is a cocky, dismissive guy that doesn't suffer fools gladly

[Eisenstein]

> it's always seemed like just below the surface is a cocky, dismissive guy that doesn't suffer fools gladly

If this is how he feels and he suppresses it 'just below the surface', isn't that good enough? If he naturally feels that way but tries not to act on it, and to top it off, actually is the best, is dismissing things that deserve to be dismissed, and is dealing with fools, then I would say that is an admirable trait.

[permo-w]

I am not here to decide whether Magnus is a good or admirable person or not. I am simply attempting to observe the mental states of the people at the top level of chess. I would say Magnus is not out of the ordinary for what he is, which is a top-level sportsman, but compared to a regular person, he's probably a little odd. as is Kasparov and as was Fischer especially.

however, with these three being the most famous, perhaps they are a skewed sample. on the other hand, that skewedness is part of the data because, by being famous, the mental impact on them is and was probably larger.

[Eisenstein]

My point was more that it is not odd at all to be that way if you actually right about it (are the best, etc). Plus the fact that he is trying to suppress it shows that he knows it is the right thing to not be a dick. These things combined make your asserting that he somehow out-of-bounds statistically (personality wise) invalid, in my view.

[permo-w]

as the top chess player, you're allowed to say and do and be things that others aren't. your defence of him is evidence of this. your judgment is rarely questioned. you're allowed to think of yourself as the best. people don't mind - even expect - a level of aloofness. however, his behaviour is different from the average person's. whether that is correct or not isn't the point. whether there is justification for that is not the point. justifications in fact make the point further.

also, it's not just his streams, he's also dealt with this whole cheating mess pretty immaturely, and I'm sure I could easily pull 3 other examples of odd behaviour out of google