Is having a trainer a must?

Just curious, it certainly seems that many, if not all, grandmasters were trained by strong masters as children, is this a must in order to become exceptional at chess? In some ways I find it hard to believe, there are 17000 masters in the world and I doubt they all had training from someone with a 2200 rating or higher, if anyone knows please respond, much appreciated, Thank you.

No, not always unless you plan to become a great GM... Although, i know some people, who only after reading a few chess books shot thier rating up to 2000+! With alot of practice that is...

I don't think it's necessary, but it helps.  I'm an instructor so my answer might be slightly biased.

That isn´t true. If you want to be a good chess player you have to have a good instuctor. (I have one Fm and one over 2200)

The fact that top players had trainers doesn't tell us a lot, as they got the trainers AFTER they discovered they had a natural ability to play chess.

Who was Fischer's trainer ?  I became NM with no trainer/teacher but it took me 11 years to do so. I think with a good trainer I may have cut the time in half, or more but I couldnt afford to have a trainer/coach/teacher. The good ones dont work for nothing..... just living in NY may also have cut the time in half or more due to having a much better chess environment than Georgia.

To NM Reb or anyone, I thought Bob Wade (NZ born ex- British) was one of the  coach/teacher or a researcher for  Bobby Fischer ?

Here, I think found the answer- "Well respected as a chess coach and author, Wade helped Bobby Fischer prepare for his 1972 World Championship match with Boris Spassky by collating a special file of Spassky's games. He was awarded an OBE for services to chess in 1979. "

source- 'click here'

Collins fit the role of Fischer's trainer as much as anyone. Fischer, Lombardy, and other strong players would gather at the Collins' home--called the Hawthorne Chess Club-- and get invaluable early help.

I think many people miss an important point - a point more important than a physical trainer (but so obvious to higher ranked players that it is not mentioned, and we lower ranked players have no clue) - which is essential to attaining masterdom in chess.

That is development of the perfect visualising capacity of the entire 64-square chess board with all its pieces in the mind. This can be done consciously (quicker) or subconsciously (slower). Please be aware that almost all masters can play an entire game blind-folded.

It is this visualising capacity (which enables one to visualise a particular line many plys deep) which sets the masters apart from us ordinary chess players.

One can certainly go a long way without a trainer - BUT - to make that last stride from good to great takes coaching.  Its no different then any other sport, even Tiger Woods has a coach.  Your coach does not neccesarily have to be a master, but they do need to be able to see what you overlook.  Nakamura is hugely talented and probably the top GM in the US . . . but if Sunil Weermantry were not his stepfather he would likely have ended up a strong IM at best. Yet Nakamura has probably been better then dad since he was 14 years old.

I had a coach for a while(1 year) when I was much lower rated, but didn't enjoy it and didn't seem to be improving. Anyways, on my own I went from a 1500 to 2500 (canadian rating) and 2400+ FIDE in exactly 5 years. It can be done. If you can afford it, it's worth a try. If my geographical location was a bit stronger chess-wise I may have had much more coaching but right now I'd only be limited to internet coaching which I can't stand (It's so boring!). I mostly improved through playing a ton of blitz and bullet games on an internet website like a typical kid. But then again, a lot of trainers have said that I have a ton of natural ability so I'm not sure if just playing a lot will work for most players. Generally you may save money in the long run. As someone earlier here stated, they made master in eleven years but it could of been cut in half or even less with a coach. I think that is definitely realistic and any player should consider it.

Having seen Wade's notes that were used in preparation for Fischer's match I would hardly call him a coach. In the pre-database days access to game scores was  not so easy. Wade was involved int he Batsford opening series and had lots of bulletins and game scores which were not readily available. He then made a notebook of some some openings for Bobby.

A coach really is someone who works with you on strategy, preparation, and other mental aspects of chess, along with opening preparation. Years ago when I was playing in Berkeley lots of people would get together and go over and test opening ideas. While not formal coaching, people improved quite a bit.

I agree Internet coaching is not the same as the spontaneous aspect is lost. Sometimes it is easier to motivate if you have someone helping you. Lessons(coach) can make chess fun and can help but is not necessary. I have had two teachers in my chess life--one a strong National Master and the other a top GM. Both made chess more fun and helped in my understanding (Thank you Roman)

No, I don't think a trainer is required... It would be nice, but not compulsory. I'm a self-taught player 100% of the way. I was taught the rules at the age of 4, and won my first game 7 years later after coming up with a few "ways of doing it" all by myself. The first guy I beat was who taught me to play in the first place.

I've come a long ways, but I'm living proof that you can become a decent chess player without a trainer.

It's not required, but I think something good is having friends who share your interest and are around your level to play and both of you will get better in time.

A trainer definatley helps. I have a coach and went from starting chess 7 months ago with a 1400 CFC to 1800+ now. But what it really boils down to is the TIME and EFFORT you put in, the coach is only a guide not driving factor for improvment.