Fischer was a reasonable, intelligent person. His manners got a lot milder once he got old.

Kasparov is probably the most mature of them all. He got into politics in the worst possible country and somehow survived, which tells me that he knows how to negotiate with people who are hostile towards him and he still beats super GMs to this day.

Magnus likes to joke around claiming that he is the best, but overall he is/was the nice kid of chess, always kind and respectful towards everyone. And even humble and level headed when he loses. This whole cheating scandal revealed a face of him that the world had never seen before.

> it's always seemed like just below the surface is a cocky, dismissive guy that doesn't suffer fools gladly

If this is how he feels and he suppresses it 'just below the surface', isn't that good enough? If he naturally feels that way but tries not to act on it, and to top it off, actually is the best, is dismissing things that deserve to be dismissed, and is dealing with fools, then I would say that is an admirable trait.

I am not here to decide whether Magnus is a good or admirable person or not. I am simply attempting to observe the mental states of the people at the top level of chess. I would say Magnus is not out of the ordinary for what he is, which is a top-level sportsman, but compared to a regular person, he's probably a little odd. as is Kasparov and as was Fischer especially.

however, with these three being the most famous, perhaps they are a skewed sample. on the other hand, that skewedness is part of the data because, by being famous, the mental impact on them is and was probably larger.

My point was more that it is not odd at all to be that way if you actually right about it (are the best, etc). Plus the fact that he is trying to suppress it shows that he knows it is the right thing to not be a dick. These things combined make your asserting that he somehow out-of-bounds statistically (personality wise) invalid, in my view.

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

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.