What is the proper training to become a grandmaster?

ive heard countless of times that a player can achieve GM title with PROPER TRAINING. can anyone point out what it may be. and if you could do so can you also help me on how to IMPROVE MY PLAY FROM 1900 ALL THE WAY TO 2200 IN LESS THAN A YEAR ? im planning to study chess 12 hours a day until SHCOOL STARTS AGAIN.

ANSWERS FROM TITLED PLAYERS ARE VERY HELPFUL.

THANK YOU IN ADVANCE !!!!!!

You need a coach to train you. I doubt you can do it alone in a year.

Get a coach - you won't find the needed advice in the forums

oh sorry :( , but can you atleast tell me how can i achieve 2200 from 1900 in less than a year ?

thank you both HICETNUNC and JIMLIEW58.

HICETNUNC, your answer on this would really be helpful. btw thank you jimie for giving me very helpful suggestions.

hicetnunc, if this wouldnt bother you, can i know what is your FIDE/NATIONAL RATING on OTB PLAY ?

My current FIDE rating is 2040

is CRISAN's METHOD cheating ?????

You could use the Ivanov method.

Equipment: spy glasses. Brain chip. Skin implant.

Cost: anything from 100 bucks if you get it all done by a backyarder hack to 50000 bucks if you use a NASA engineer who has been smoking weed since his space shuttle program went kaput.

risks: lifelong glory or infamy. You are putting it all on the line.

Not even the jempty method?!

I have recently read a book called Outliers,the story of success by Malcolm Gladwell. It explores the practicallities of being a success. In all cases from ice hockey,computer programming , chess etc. the answer is always the same . You need talent first ,then opportunity and support. Oddly enough the 10 000 hour rule seems to apply every time.( and I thought it was made up) In order to decidate so many hours you need someone to support you and the oportunity to apply your talent.Most GM's apparently took about 10 years to reach that level,Bobby Fischer was an execption - he did it in 9 years.This is what I have read anyway ,personally I have no idea if that is true.

I stop reading as soon as you said the "10,000"....

I am afraid mention of that rule does not seem well received. I never knew what its origins were or why people got so upset about it but this book at least claimed that it is based on various studies done. I hate it because I am worried it is true which means I will be a patzer forever.

I think talent or apptitude cannot be taught .All true champions are born with abilities ,if they don't work at it someone with less talent and more work will probably overtake them but few people if any can become an IM or GM without having a natural talent for chess first. I don't know the Polgar sisters myself but I would imagine they have quite a bit of talent. Still, this is just my opinion.Perhaps an IM or GM can give better advice on what it takes.

but the question is still, and yes it might be blasphemic especially with my total rookie knowledge: is every GM a genius??? well they are  smart not doubt, but can you consider everyone of them a genius??

Well I think in any discipline where you start with x amount of kids that has never done a particular discipline before there will be some that are just naturally better than others .They learn quicker and somehow just have a better understanding. Some kids work really hard but still can't beat someone else that just has a real apptitude /insight/talent. Add to that talent opportuniy to work at it and you will probably have a winner. Most remarkable people took to their subject as if it was second nature ,dedicated lots of time to it and became great . So for me there is merit in the talent first opinion.

But surely you had a talent for music,rythm etc. before you took up the piano.You can put me behind a grand piano for 10 000 hours and I would still not become a proffesional musician.

well i might have interpreted it incorrectly but i think i read Alekhine had not such a great talent to begin with but through hard work and dedication he became what he is now famous too. But i might interpret it wrongly and they just ment in comparison to other WCs.

I agree but it also works on the athletic field where some have a physical ability that is superior to others. I suppose you can call it many things but without the capacity ,ability,aptitude ,feel,insight or whatever else you want to call it ,becoming really good is just that much more difficult if not impossible.I have to go now,thanks for the debate and keeping it so civil , I do not often comment in the forums because things seem to  get heated very quickly sometimes :)

maybe you are right, maybe thats why i suck so bad in chess.

but i dont think math and chess really correlates, even though it seems to work for computers and yes i think Nunn was a really good in the field of mathematics.