Responsibilty of GMs on this site/communtiy

I find it unsettling when some GM's and other high level players are rather gruff with people. It's one thing to walk up and shove a microphone/video camera in their face, so I can understand not being happy with that, but it's another to simply say Hello and be totally unresponsive.

But I also know the type of personalities that this game attracts. And frankly I've found it rare to meet people who are very high level players with reasonable social skills. Many tend to be very introverted to the point of coming off very rude.

And everybody has a bad day. I usually pride myself on being accepting of people and atypical behavior, but every so often I can have a really bad day and get set-off by minor annoyances and turn into a total asshole and regret it within minutes.

Well then such "friendliness" doesn't seem very genuine. Apparently when people say hello they are really saying "You better talk to me and make me feel good or I'm going to be mean." Scary! A truly friendly person would say hello only in the hopes of making someone feel better, not expecting something in return. Nothing wrong with enjoying something in return of course, but that's a very different thing.

Wow, it seems like many people are torn. There are many valid points on both sides and I will be more mindful in the future when dealing with people. Everyone does not think like me, and if people came up to me I would take it as a compliment, but again that is me. I appreciate everyonr's feedback on this issue.

I wouldn't worry too much about Chess.com "masters" because some of the "masters" on this site are laughable. Of course, there are some masters here that I respect, such as GM Kaidanov, but some of them are really undeserving. I am talking especially about one "master" with a non-FIDE title who writes a book where he analyses every single game with Houdini and then he gets flustered whenever his chess strength and competence is questioned in his column. Laughable. For the record, I am only playing here occasionally to try stuff out, although I do have a title, I would not like to associate my name with this website for precisely the same reason. Also because it is well known as being a cheater's paradise.:)

Yes there are many gruff and hot tempered answers to this question, aren't there?

Chess people are a curious lot.

Exactly what do you mean by "gruff"?

The GM title doesn't seem relevant here. If a guy doesn't want to talk he won't. People are going to do what they're going to do. You just keep doing what you're doing. I don't think it gets anymore complicated than that.

Please think about why titled players are given free entries in the tournaments even though they are most likely to win prizes.

No name dropping malachi? Aw man..... Dang.

It's really Ben Finegold ain't it? You can tell me, it's just between us.

It's not Finegold. If you really care you can google search the tournament pretty easily and it will be very obvious who he was.

Oh, ok. Thanx FDR. 

Sorry Ben. 

I think the titled players do a great job here at Chess.com!  It's wonderful that they bless us by playing here!

I think many of you are missing the point... I do not think that Malachi76 is suggesting that the GM in question "owed" him anything, and did not have a "responsibility" to have a conversation with the other players.

Instead, I think he is suggesting that GM's should have more humility in their personality. I think it would be odd if Malachi76 had struck up a conversation with somebody in his own section, it would suprise anybody if that person was rude / unresponsive or at least did not carry small talk briefly before excusing himself. Why should a GM be any different? Because he is clearly better at chess? Sure, it may take a lot of effort and personal time to get to that level, but the title is not an excuse to ignore basic social standards like responding to another person.

The Hollywood example is bad in its relation to the situation Malachi76 was in. The GM in question (as Malachi76 stated) was alone in the lobby when he tried to strike up a conversation. If it was a hollywood celebrity also alone in a lobby and you briefly tried to have a small conversation (granted that they were not busy, or on their way somewhere) it would be odd for them to be so self-centered, as to think of themselves above such trivial conversation.

Granted, some people just aren't as socially adepted, and that's a sad fact of the world. Or maybe he was just having a bad day. But I argue for a generalized situation, unrelated to such anomalies.

I would also like to add that titled players are given free entries to Open tournaments, although they are the most likely to win money. It is because of the untitled players' entry fees that they are able to play there for free. People play in the opens to be able to socialise and analyse their games with grandmasters, something they cannot do at home. It is very rude/unprofessional to give the cold shoulder to people just because you are not doing well in the tournament. For a lot of people it is the only open tournament in a year that they play at, so the only opportunity they have to talk to GMs. If every player who is not doing well in the tournament (which arguably amounts to more than half) would be sullen like that, would it be a very pleasant place to be in? GMs, as professionals, should be an example to other players (and especially young players), of sportsmanship and dignity.

I also have the opinion that masters should not be entitled to free entry. Too many times I have seen titled players abuse this by simply withdrawing in the middle of the tournament if they are not doing well. I think it would be much better for them to have to pay the entry fee and only get it back under satisfactory behavior. While nobody will follow them around with a camera to make sure they smile at everyone, but that would at least stop them from withdrawing, because they would have monetary stake in it.

Well... there r 4 GMs, so it's not that obvious.

It was mentioned that he is a famous chess.com GM. And only one of them is, afaik.

In the most recent USCL season, I went to the Mechanics Chess Club to see what was going on.  I did not know the venue, so I asked a fairly short Indian gentleman in the hallway where the restroom was.

It was GM Vinay Bhat, and it was during his USCL game.  He stopped and gave me directions politely, and I thanked him.  I did not find out until later after I left that it was him, or that he was playing his league game against another GM at the time (a French Defense poisoned pawn)...he never said a word.  Pretty cool, I thought.  

"Waaah I saw somebody cool and wanted his attention and he wouldn't give it to me waaah"  

Good grief grow up.  Not everyone is outgoing/extraverted/socially apt enough to care about a random Joe Blow who wants to talk their ears off.  If you try to talk to somebody and they're clearly not interested in the conversation because they're shy or grumpy or for heaven's sake just doesn't want to talk to you, kindly do them a favor, get the hint and buzz off.  They're not the rude one for not wanting to engage in meaningful/less conversation with a stranger because they don't OWE YOU THEIR TIME.  "I never said he owed me anything" yes you basically did.  By being a whiney baby because they wouldn't give you the time of day is basically saying they owe you their time and courtesy simply because you demand it.  

You're obnoxious, don't have children.

Bent Larsen once invited me out for a beer after a round. That was in the Montreal Canadian Open back in the seventies.

Unfortunately, I was under-age and would only have gotten the pair of us thrown out of the bar, so I declined. :(

              I like Wrinn's answer.