Why modern chess masters lack minimal social skills?

So I'm going to give a little constructive criticism. This doesn't have to be awkward or unpleasant for us and I welcome everyone to express their opinion. Here's mine:

Magnus Carlsen is a feelingless robot. My dog Bobby has a wider emotion range. I know Happy Magnus, Sad Magnus, Concentrated Magnus, Unemotional Magnus, and Unaffected Magnus. And that's it. But still it's difficult to tell the difference between Happy Magnus and Unemotional Magnus, or between Sad Magnus and Unaffected Magnus. I have to pay a lot of attention to notice which state he's in.

Hikaru Nakamura is your typical fat chinese nerd that tries to be funny and interesting but fails miserably. He probably was the last pick in high school sport teams, and only because it was mandatory to pick him.

Fabiano Caruana. Well, he has glasses, but he is permanently spaced out.

Levon Aronian, cringy, in a Ted Bundy kind of way.

What do you think when you compare them with the previous generation? Kasparov, Karpov, etc. I wouldn't mind having a vodka with them and have a chat. But the new ones? OH, man. They are so unlikable that they have managed to erase chess from the mainstream media.

Viktor Korchnoi = Don Quixote

Anatoly Karpov = Fish

Chess was almost never in the mainstream media.

The only time was during the Fischer Spaasky match and that was because it had been sold as a Cold War battle.

And there was no live TV coverage of the match. Fischer wouldn't allow it. 

If there had been, you would have seen his unlikeable side.

Now, with live streaming,  you want chessplayers to be entertainers.

Did you see this? Magnus Carlsen is a monster, slipping into lower rated titled players tournaments as Dr. Drunkenstein.

https://slate.com/culture/2020/02/magnus-carlsen-speed-chess-drdrunkenstein-pseudonyms-twitch-youtube.html

This would carry merit if you knew these people on a first name basis. They are here to play chess not to amuse us, this isn't reality tv. And still I would have to disagree with you. Top chess players now as well as before seem to be some of the most quirky and colorful people you could come across.

Jan Gustafsson is pretty likeable I think. 

Kasparov can be really good when he's on form but other times he's just babbling. I've seen him embarrass himself on tv enough times to rule out ever calling him a good speaker in general, though sometimes he can be. 

They say you should never meet your heros, well maybe you should never meet your chess heroes either.

If you were to meet Chigorin, what would you expect? Would you expect an audacious, fiery man? A warrior, a quick wit, a rebel, a fascinating knowledge and commentary of all issues? Because he probably wouldn't be. He was probably just your average guy, maybe a bit above average intelligence.  

In the end chess is all a bit of a fairytale, you shouldn't take it too seriously. 

I imagine to be at their level that they are/have studied chess for an average of 8 hours every day for decades and what we are seeing is the personification of their disciplined genius. They create beauty for us on the chessboard regardless of our socially constructed expectations of who they should be and how they should act for us. If that's what you're here for, there are plenty of good looking and socially normaitive people on the TV or netflix or whatever.

my rating is poor because i go to many parties and am part of the bon vivant set.

have to go now, am expected in brussels for a cocktail party....jet is waiting.

The idea of this forum is based on looking at Carlsen and a little more but you really do not have enough data to make your assumptions. The very top players do have to be absorbed in chess when they are playing but you have little data on their personal or home life?

You seems to be trying to make negative first impressions.  Anyone can name call such as calling 

Fabiano as spaced out,

I'd think that's the whole purpose of the posting. High troll index!

Why does this site attract the crappiest trolls on the internet?

That's a very good question, but I don't want to think about it.

I dont think that it is the site, but merely that it is on the internet.  (plus these topics are generally "easier" to troll)

Because trolling requires at least a little bit of a brain. "Trolls" on news websites usually don't even have anything than pure insulting.

Them main reason the internet exists is so that meaningless little turds like the OP can make themselves feel big by attacking people 100 times more accomplished than they are

Are you kidding? That guy is about as entertaining as a global pandemic

I think Carlsen, Aronian, Anand, etc., are all able to socialize with other people decently.

You should get back in your tent