But! Not when players have to be forced to play.

And who is being forced to play here? Homunculus agrees to play under the specified conditions. Alex also agrees to play under the specified conditions, with the exception of the prize pool.

The question here is specifically framed as "there will be money, there will be a game."

Well, yes. Is that abnormal?

The person has won everything possible online, has long been playing only live and only for money, so why would he play for free just because someone issued a challenge?

In his place, I would do the same. And you would do the same. And Defiant would do the same. This is not showing off or selfishness, but simply common sense.

Moreover, Alex is not demanding any special conditions or bonuses for himself; he agrees to play under equal conditions with his opponent. In chess, champions have long had contractual advantages over contenders – travel allowances for the match, retaining the title in case of a draw, and other minor things. The first match for the world chess championship, where the opponents were on equal terms, took place only in 2006.

The analogy with chess is undoubtedly correct. In general, a series of games between the strongest players with motivation and stakes is very interesting in any sport.

That's the whole point. The rest are technical difficulties, in my opinion, that can be overcome.