[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

[Eisenstein]

You argument is tautological 'they cannot act average because they are exceptional'. You cannot separate one from the other -- either put an 'average' person in their position and judge how they react to it (in which case Magnus would be a good example), or say that people who are seen as exceptional could never have been 'average'.

It seems to me you are arguing for the latter, which makes your whole argument pointless. Am I mistaken?

EDIT -- To clarify: your argument is tautological because any example that is brought up will be someone who has become famous and idolized, and thus negated by your 'a normal person wouldn't act like that' retort. It is impossible to hold up a non-famous chess genius because we can't know who they are.