Simba the "Tech King"
In the sprawling digital wasteland of 2025, where every app notification feels like a cry for help and every software update seems designed by someone who clearly never used the previous version, there exists a peculiar anomaly. Chess.com, that humble digital board where millions of humans voluntarily subject themselves to intellectual humiliation, has been quietly operating for over two decades without its CEO becoming a household name, launching a podcast, or announcing plans to colonize Jupiter (since Mars has already been taken).
This is not an accident. It is, in fact, the most subversive business model in modern technology.
The Custodian Heresy
While the rest of Silicon Valley has been busy turning their founders into lifestyle brands and their platforms into personality cults, Chess.com has committed the ultimate sin in contemporary tech culture: they have remained invisible. Their users know pieces move in specific patterns, that losing to a 12-year-old from Belarus is character-building, and that the website and app works reliably. What they don’t know—and this is crucial—is what the CEO had for breakfast, his thoughts on cryptocurrency, or his plans to revolutionize human consciousness through neural interfaces.
This approach, which we might call “Digital Monasticism,” represents a fundamental threat to the established order of modern technology companies. Consider the implications: if a platform can succeed by simply… working, what does this say about the necessity of founder worship that has become the bedrock of contemporary tech culture?
Erik Allebest, Chess.com’s co-founder and CEO, has somehow managed to run a platform serving over 150 million registered users without once appearing on Joe Rogan’s podcast. This level of restraint borders on the pathological by current industry standards. In an era where tech executives treat X (formerly Twitter) like their personal therapy session and corporate earnings calls like TED talks, Allebest’s commitment to anonymity represents either profound wisdom or a complete misunderstanding of how to properly monetize one’s ego.
The Main Show Syndrome Epidemic
The condition now plaguing Silicon Valley—which we shall term “Main Show Syndrome”—represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between platform and personality. The symptoms are unmistakable: an inability to discuss one’s product without inserting personal philosophy, the compulsive need to comment on geopolitical events, and the delusion that users come to social media platforms to hear from their creators rather than to connect with each other.
Mark Zuckerberg, once content to be the awkward overlord of a digital yearbook, now insists on personally announcing every minor algorithm tweak as if he’s revealing the next stage of human evolution. His transformation from privacy-invading college dropout to mixed martial arts enthusiast philosopher-king represents the terminal stage of Main Show Syndrome. Users don’t log onto Instagram to hear Zuckerberg’s thoughts on the metaverse or about his newly assembled Artificial Super Intelligence super team—they want to see pictures of their friend’s questionably prepared meals and their cousin’s new baby. Yet somehow, the distinction between being a utility and being the entertainment has been lost.
Elon Musk has elevated Main Show Syndrome to an art form, turning X (formerly Twitter) into his personal stream-of-consciousness performance art piece. His acquisition of the platform represented the ultimate merger of ego and infrastructure—imagine if the person who owned the phone company insisted on joining every conversation to share their thoughts on tunnel systems and space exploration. Musk has successfully convinced millions that his personal brand is inseparable from every platform he touches, creating a dangerous precedent where the medium becomes indistinguishable from the messenger’s psychological state.
The Custodian Philosophy
Chess.com’s approach suggests a radically different understanding of platform stewardship. Their success implies that users primarily want three things: functionality, reliability, and the blessed absence of the founder’s personal journey updates. This “custodian model” treats digital platforms as public utilities rather than personality vehicles—a concept so foreign to modern tech culture that it almost sounds subversive.
The custodian philosophy recognizes that users don’t seek platforms to commune with their creators but to fulfill specific needs: intellectual stimulation, social connection, entertainment, or in Chess.com’s case, the masochistic pleasure of having their strategic inadequacies exposed by anonymous opponents worldwide. The platform becomes transparent infrastructure rather than branded experience.
This approach has allowed Chess.com to weather two decades of technological upheaval without scandal, controversy, or the need to explain why their CEO’s latest tweet about ancient civilizations somehow relates to their core chess-playing functionality. They’ve avoided the increasingly common phenomenon where users have to separate their appreciation for a platform from their feelings about its creator’s political opinions, dietary choices, or theories about simulation theory.
The Attention Economics Rebellion
Chess.com’s longevity suggests that the attention economy—where platforms compete for user engagement through increasingly desperate content strategies—may be fundamentally flawed. Instead of optimizing for time spent scrolling, they’ve optimized for time spent thinking. Instead of algorithmic feeds designed to generate emotional responses, they offer a 1,500-year-old game that requires actual mental effort.
This represents a form of digital rebellion against the dopamine-driven design principles that govern most modern platforms. While other sites measure success through “engagement metrics” that often correlate with user frustration, Chess.com measures success through user satisfaction with an activity that has no connection to trending topics, viral dances, or inflammatory political content.
The platform’s interface remains refreshingly free of the psychological manipulation techniques that have become standard in social media design. There are no infinite scroll mechanisms, no algorithmic recommendations designed to exploit cognitive biases, and no features designed to make users feel inadequate about their social connections or lifestyle choices. Users open the site, play chess, and close it—a transaction so straightforward it feels almost anachronistic.
The Invisible Empire
Perhaps most remarkably, Chess.com has built what might be called an “invisible empire.” Their influence on global chess culture is undeniable—they’ve democratized access to the game, created new forms of online chess entertainment, and facilitated millions of games daily. Yet this influence operates without the cult of personality that typically accompanies platform power in the digital age.
This invisibility extends beyond just the CEO. The platform’s content strategy doesn’t require users to stay informed about company culture, hiring practices, or corporate social responsibility initiatives. Users aren’t asked to have opinions about the platform’s stance on free speech, content moderation, or geopolitical issues. The platform exists to facilitate chess; everything else is considered irrelevant noise.
The contrast with other platforms is striking. Twitter users must navigate Musk’s personal brand alongside their social networking needs. Facebook users exist within Zuckerberg’s vision of digital connection. TikTok users participate in whatever cultural phenomenon the algorithm has determined will generate maximum engagement. Chess.com users simply play chess.
The Future of Digital Monasticism
As Main Show Syndrome continues to metastasize throughout Silicon Valley, Chess.com’s model offers a glimpse of an alternative future—one where digital platforms return to being utilities rather than personality cults. This would require a fundamental shift in how we understand the relationship between creator and creation, between platform and personality.
The implications are profound. If platforms could succeed by simply working well rather than by creating celebrity founders, the entire venture capital ecosystem might need to reconsider its investment strategies. If users prefer functional anonymity to charismatic leadership, the business school case studies about visionary tech founders might need substantial revision.
The Chess.com model suggests that perhaps the most revolutionary act in modern technology is not disruption, but discretion. Not innovation for its own sake, but the patient stewardship of tools that solve actual problems without creating new ones. In an attention economy, invisibility becomes the ultimate luxury—both for platform creators and their users.
As other platforms continue their descent into the personal broadcasting networks of their founders’ psychological states, Chess.com quietly maintains its position as a place where anonymous humans can engage in structured intellectual combat without having to care about anyone’s political opinions, dietary choices, or theories about the simulation hypothesis.
The question remains: in an industry built on the premise that technology founders must become philosopher-kings to succeed, can the custodian model survive? Or will Chess.com eventually succumb to the inevitable pressure to turn its CEO into a thought leader, its platform into a lifestyle brand, and its simple chess interface into another vector for personal brand building?
The answer may determine whether digital platforms can return to being tools that serve human needs, or whether they will continue their transformation into monuments to their creators’ egos.
GIPHY App Key not set. Please check settings