i don't

Exactly! 

How about those guys that slam their pieces down every single time? It's like 1.e4 g6!!!! with a big thud.

Ever know any guys like that?

like King Kong, only played him once.

Was Capablanca not socially adept?

Or Lasker?

Or Botvinik?

Or Kasparov?

Help me out, here.

This argument is too broad.  Specifically what types of social settings?  If a highly trained person is amongst those at work who are conversing simply to pass time and the conversation is meaningless, then yes the smart people may choose not to engage as it is a waste of time.  Conversely, surrounded by like minded persons, that same person may be highly engaged while the so called "social" person doesnt know what to talk to around these highly trained persons.  Viewpoints dont hold for all situations.  I think Go and chess are highly valuable in terms of training persons about what situations and people to avoid.  I specifically find Go though to be much more valuable in terms of dealing with social situations such as work that a person is subjected to as far as not being able to confront social situations directly, but to use deception so as to protect oneself.  I act friendly at work simply to get along and protect myself, not because I want to have anything to do with the people I work with which for the most part I intensely dislike.  So if Go or chess time investment is a way to deal with these "social" aka F.O.S. people at work or elsewhere, then it is time well spent.

Amen.

None.

Yes, he also used to slam the clock--harder and harder as his position got worse--and wrecked a couple of the club's cheapo clocks...off to pokerland!

actually i find poker slightly amusing sometimes. Even so its probably all prearanged for the cameras.