It is definitely possible, and is used by several players in the U.S to try and maximize their prize money.

He isn't totally without experience against fairly strong opposition, having played in Corus B when he was 16. There he won against players like Bruzon and Tiviakov. Bruzon had an even score in Corus A the next year, and a year after that Tiviakov managed to get the same result.

And mind you (and any other kibitzers whose upset about bad attitutes of competitive chess players), such things happen ALL the time. If you actually go and play in ANY tournament I would be surprised if all the competitors you see are 100% gentlemen.

Some "rude behavior" I personally encountered in my short-lived, low level tournament days include 1.The refusal to shake hands before/after a game(with new FIDE rules, at least hand shakes must be done before a game if someone offers it) 2.Refusal to sign the score sheet for resignation gracefully 3.Refusal to rearrange the pieces back after (losing) a game 4.Grumbling about your opponent's defensive style when its his own offensive inaccuracies that cost hte game 5.Accounting the loss solely to one's own mistake rather than giving any credits to the opponent, 6.Hammering every piece capture you make, or banging the clock. 7.Shouting checks so loud that the entire playing hall can hear you (as if a check is necessarily good, or that the loudness makes the checking move stronger in any sense)

In any case your example shows that being rude is just a very small aspect of a chess player. How many of us here don't like Gary's chess (contributions)? I'd rather have more Gary Kasparov[Players who can play good chess] in the chess scene than 100 or even 1000 perfect gentlemen that don't play as well.

< But not to forget, the entire society was rather male-domineering back then, with more "dilutions" today.> back then? it was in the 90s!

It's odd, I give Fischer a pass for far more damaging stuff, but that's because I see him as stone cold nuts. I love Nakamura's chess but he strikes me as spoiled. No great crime.

I think the next episode came in Nakamura-Sasikiran, where Nakamura used the unorthodox Patzer's opening 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 which stunned Sasikiran into an hour thinking time-deficit. Again, strong criticisms from Bashers who think Nakamura's not respecting his opponent. Now, why must Nakamura be DICTATED into playing an "orthodox, rationale opening"? Can't he take a risk and possible do a little opening experiment? If he's succeeded he would have become a major contributor to the development of opening lines. If it's such a taboo to use an unorthodox opening, why not just make it a law in chess? "A player who makes the move 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 automatically gets disqualified". And mind you, even a GM like Sasikiran didn't handle the opening well, Nakamura dropped the game because of a mistake later in the game, nothing to do with his opening choice at all. As pointed by a fellow user around this community, the best refutation is probably 2...Nf6! gambitting a pawn, for an overwhelming development advantage to follow.