Can Anyone Become Grandmaster?

Yeah!

For example, did he have the same good material, GM friends and trainers, and did as many OTb tournaments as, say, Paul Morphy?

I speculated in an earlier post that Paul Morphy probably had top flight GM's training him secretly, following proven training methods they had developed over the years.

Also, looking at his style there is absolutely no doubt Morphy was able to study some of the best games in history from players like Alekhine, Tal, and of course Kasparov.

And lets not forget what a great tactician Morphy was. I am going to guess many hours studying with the Polgar book, and CT-ART 4.0. (Actually 5.0 was just released last month, so maybe he used that instead).

In short, Morphy was a talentless pretender who was just overly trained, like some chimpanzee at the circus taught to smoke cigars.

Morphy being a great tactician despite the lack of those resources should raise a question: how necessary are they?  Why not simply work calculation, positional qualities, and strategy/planning?  Tactics (and everything else in chess) are grounded in them anyway.  We consider tactics or sacrifices because of the positional gains they net us, or having the observation to refute an opponent's move that simply allows us to gain material or even mate. 

Nearly everyone won't be as good as Morphy despite our modern tools, but we can reach our best selves more than people in those days.  Back then beginners played far weaker in the opening whereas today they could look up a Carlsen game and copy his moves until he's out of book. 

"In short, Morphy was a talentless pretender who was just overly trained, like some chimpanzee at the circus taught to smoke cigars."

Whether one obtains skill through talent or hard work the fact remains the skill is there.  Who cares if Judit Polgar was "over trained" since she was essentially a baby?  She could still beat nearly anyone in the history of the world including Morphy. 

Every time you come back you give more and more credence to talent.  Earlier, you argued hard work made it possible and cited yourself as an example - although you aren't a GM.  Then, you said talent was 5% of the equation.  (We thank you for that amount of honesty.)  Now, you are saying that there is no evidence that talent is more important than study.

On that point, we agree.  So, it sounds like you are convinced now that there is close to an even distribution of talent and work required. 

Welcome to the dark side.

Yes, we converted Phelon. Slowly, by degrees.

The only hiding now is in the shadow behind the strawman of "talent is more important than correct study", whatever that is supposed to mean.

I wonder someone already have written Phd thesis by combining all threads. As we all know enough about this topic, please stop replying. Its really making my life miserable. (2 more comments and I will quit playing chess).

He waved the white flag when he admitted that talent was a factor - why dicker over the percentage mix of talent vs. work?  

It's like the lady that agreed to sleep with a man for a million dollars.  When he countered with, "What can I get for fifty?"  She was outraged, but then it was just about negotiation...

If talent matters, then some people can't be GMs regardless of work (which was obvious from page one of this thread).  

FM frappeboy:

Thank you for your comments my dearest ! I hold (you) titled players offering their thoughts on this thread in very high regard....knowing their desire to attain the elusive GM title has been, most likely, a lifelong goal....so, they've put quantities of thought and effort in the process. And I admire your courage to post your comments - knowing you'll be dissected/criticized and trolled now and again.

You have my respect my beloved....Lola

An odd point upon which to settle into a feeling of argumentative superiority, since it's full of fallacious thinking and irrelevant to the argument.

Nobody is arguing geniuses like Morphy don't exist.  The argument is about what is possible for those who aren't, given correct attempts at progress.

Your little rant here is an odd combination of the cherry picking fallacy, affirming the disjunct, and an existential error.  It would be hard for a student of logic to harness his abilities and conjure something less correct or relevant.

It's kind of a triumph, in that sense.

Anyway, Phelon has been mostly correct throughout the thread.  Good on him for not caving in to frustration in clearly dealing with the argumentatively impaired.

Well "hi" to you my darling Vibhav_G....yes, I recognize you're a part of our community........ 

that was awesome!!!!!!!!!!! thank you!!

I think they should remove all titles. Instead, offer university degrees in chess. Instead of grandmaster, ph.D. There is another thread about chess masters having low education. This would certainly fix that.

That's a bad idea because college is way overpriced as it is.  One shouldn't be forced to throw yet even more money down the toilet just for the chance to compete at a high level.  Besides Fischer dropped out of school.  Leave learning professional practical skillsets for college and chess for the coaches. 

By reclassifying chess as a form of education?  Doesn't sound like it fixes anything except the semantics.

It's worse than semantics.  Currently, to become a GM, you have to beat the competition.

Any idiot can get a degree.

welnow, jus hold yer horsis heer

I have indeed met a lot of idiots with degrees.

amen to ya feller

There are also numerous cases like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3IMP0fwlCM

And this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPHv9KqpgqM

Now I'm pretty sure that there are not 10,000 hours in a week.

I've pointed talents like that out before, and a lot of idiots on here, still claim it's just hard work.