Chess Players, Chess' biggest detriment

Not everyone who plays chess gives chess a bad image.

But those who believe your worth as a chess player is linked to how well you play really make the game look bad.  Perhaps it is because many attributes that lead to being a good chess player also makes you socially inept.

In any case, I have met these people over the board, seen videos of a gm claiming that certain people given award will never amount to anything in the chess world, and I have seen it multiple times on this forum.

I have also seen very nice people on this board, so I am not talking about all chess players.

People making the claim that everyone can be a 1600 here or achieve a class A status with self study are simply ignorant.

I am saying if you claim anyone can be a 1600 with self study, and your point of view is limited to your own experience, then you are ignorant.

Why praise someone for getting better at a board game.  It just means if you want to win and have not studied, don't play that person.

We are people not ratings.

The amount of study and time invested to get to a high level in chess seems worthy of praise to me. And yes, pretty much anybody can get to 1600 with enough study. Do I think that high rated players are superior people? No. Do I respect them for the amount of time they've put into learning the game? Yes.

How much experience have you had with the general population and chess?

Quite a bit. Why?

@MelvinGarvey

That is an incredibly insightful observation and I agree 100% with every word. What I find most intriguing about it is that while we are talking about chess, there are countless skills/talents that fit that description. It is not really a commentary about chess as it is a commentary on humans. 

No other species suffers from this "malady". 

PS While trying to figure out how to "play better" might be a childish achievement, there are people (Michael Jordan....Tom Brady....Tiger Woods) who have made fortunes doing so. 

I'm not concerned when people talk about the pointlessness of spending years developing chess skills.

In the long run, spending your time making money or bombs instead is every bit as pointless.

I don't think MelvinGarvey was trying to say chess was pointless....just useless when applied to other life skills. And I know I wasn't saying that. I think there are many "points" to chess, whether or not it applies to anything else, not the least of which is the opportunity to connect with other people (even in other countries) and have meaningful discussions. 
Making money is a different subject. If you do it to feed and care for your family, that's one thing. If you take it to excess....compromising your values and your other responsibilities, that's something else. 

Melvin pointed out what a weird concept it (chess skill)  is. I took that to mean "interesting....intruiging....unusual....odd....", but in no way pointless. 

chess is pointless. 

it helps some kids cope with bad lives but its just as likely to keep you from being successful by falling in love with the craft , instead of building a career.

I took up chess in retirement. It's perfect for that. Along with woodworking, hiking, yard care, it's a great mental supplement. 

I doubt any.  What experience?

I do not see why this matters to the sake of the argument as I cannot prove it.

You can have your gm title, I will take the 10 billion dollars.  Being rich leads to a much better life than being poor.  Studies on happiness have shown this to be true.

What kind of experience?  I will assume you are being truthful.

If your only concern is happiness, then why not leave each person to do what makes them happy? If someone enjoys chess far more than anything else money could buy, that's their decision.

It's a bit difficult to say "I have spent x hours talking to people"

Most of my time talking with others has been spent in other communities for various games.

If being a bigot and putting down others who have put in years to get better gives you joy, don't say anything?

So you have little or no experience trying to teach complicated topics to large numbers of average people.