I never quite understood the discussion around the term elitism? To the extend that when I hear such an accusation, I don't know what they mean by that. Are you accusing elite chess players of being mostly arrogant and looking down on other players? There is nothing wrong about being extremely strong and self aware of your chess skills. Being arrogant about it is never a good look of course. I believe one has to be more specific when they talk about elitism and point the type of behavior that they can't stand from top players. From my point of view, chess elites of today are definitely less elitists than those of the past, and to a large extend computer chess demystified this aura that surrounded the top players. Nowadays you can log in to your account and challenge the best player in the world to a game, if you have a prime account. A challenge that will be in most cases accepted. How is that for elitism? Also, most of the top players have to hustle for a living. Can you accuse them for offering advice via paid lessons only? What is the type of behavior that you cannot stand really?

I never quite understood the discussion around the term elitism? To the extend that when I hear such an accusation, I don't know what they mean by that. Are you accusing elite chess players of being mostly arrogant and looking down on other players? There is nothing wrong about being extremely strong and self aware of your chess skills. Being arrogant about it is never a good look of course. I believe one has to be more specific when they talk about elitism and point the type of behavior that they can't stand from top players. From my point of view, chess elites of today are definitely less elitists than those of the past, and to a large extend computer chess demystified this aura that surrounded the top players. Nowadays you can log in to your account and challenge the best player in the world to a game, if you have a prime account. A challenge that will be in most cases accepted. How is that for elitism? Also, most of the top players have to hustle for a living. Can you accuse them for offering advice via paid lessons only? What is the type of behavior that you cannot stand really?

I think you have missed the point of this discussion. it was my own personal opinion and I wanted to get other peoples opinions on what chess elitism is.

Maybe I did miss it, and I'm sorry if I did. In my opinion, there is practically no elitism in chess.

The hatred so extreme he can't spell Carlsen's name right.

Magnus Carlson.

To get the thread back on track as it seems this is devolving into a topic I didn't intend for this post, what are peoples opinions on chess elitism, as it does exists. Benjimin Fingeold is a very good example.

You do realize that Pogchamps is completely centered around making money, right?

I'm with Carlsen on this one, I think pogchamps is bad for chess. It makes it look like chess is just a passing fad, bought on by the queen's gambit and covid quarantines. Give it a few months and the people who started chess during the 'boom' will move on to the next thing.

I have been following chess for some time now, and only recently have I began playing due to the recent boom on Twitch  chess content, as well as my own personal interest. At first I assumed that chess was all about the game, however that no longer seems to be the case as I learn more about the top players.  Personally I want to become competitive in chess, as well as having fun at the same time, however it seems that in the chess community you can only choose one of these. You are either a competitive chess player, or a casual player, you can not be in the middle.

This is mostly due to the actions of certain grandmasters who have played the game for a long time. Name in particular being Magnus Carlson. Previously I thought the guy was an idol, a person I aspire to be, however I no longer believe that's the case.  For a game that evolves with the more players playing the game, its a shame that the world champion that is the 'figure head' of chess discriminated against pretty much everyone who isn't him, and actively discourages new players, and sows drama throughout the community, no longer making the game just about chess, and more about his personal grievances. Grandmaster is a title that takes a lifetime to earn, something I wish to achieve, however it feels less valuable when the top GM dishonors the title with his elitism.

I feel as a newer player I am able to give an authentic opinion on chess elitism, and wanted to start a dialog to see if this is just a 'me' thing or if there is some merit to this feeling I have.

+1 he encouraged me to start

You still spelled his name wrong here, oh the hatred.

That's an obvious typo. Relax grammar nazi. If that's the only thing you can argue against in that dude's thread of disinformation, then you're pretty sad!

He's misspelled his name more than enough for it to be a typo.

Literally EVERYTHING you said is wrong! If that's what you were going for, I applaud you for the  masterful troll thread you've started here. If not, let me try to educate you. 

1) Never make assumptions. When you do that you will always make an A.. out of yourself! Just like literally every other competitive activity on the planet, when you get to the more competitive levels of chess, there is politics, money, scandal, involved. This should be obvious to you.

2) As for having fun playing chess while getting better, that is not only possible, but essential. Nobody is going to get even modestly decent at this game if playing chess isn't fun for them. If you took up chess because you like the idea of the intellectual prestige that being good at chess affords, then you will never get any good. And trust me, I've met lots of people who are exactly like that who have approached me for lessons. They come to me at the level of weak beginner and ask things like "How long do you think it will take to become an Expert, or a Master". Anyone who has just started the game and asks a question like that will never even get close to being an Expert or a Master. They probably don't have the intelligence required in the first place, and even if they did, they wouldn't put all the work in.

3) There is lots of middle ground between casual and competitive. There are tons of strong amateurs out there who are very accomplished at chess but not quite good enough to make a living at it. It's a scale between 200-2872, and trust me there are people at every number in that range. 

4) I'm not sure why you're hating on Carlsen. You're making a lot of ridiculous libelous remarks about him yet not even offering a shred of proof or even an example to justify your accusations. You might be one of these people who expects top competitors to be meek and ostentatiously falsely modest, That would be a fault in your value system and nothing to do with there being anything wrong with the top competitor. People who get to the top are not meek and weak. They are highly competitive and have big egos. That's what drives them to the top. There is nothing wrong with being really good at something. In fact, it's much better than really sucking at the things you put time and effort into. 

5) Grandmaster is mostly certainly NOT a title that takes a lifetime to earn. Most serious players nowadays become GM's well before their 15th birthday. And most chess players NEVER become anywhere near GM even after dedicating their life to the game. It has nothing to do with time, but intelligence and ability. 

Your opinion is that of someone who doesn't understand chess, competition, or excellence at anything. I'll take it from where it's coming from!