2200 as adult without talent?

I am discussing right now with a guy who says that any adult can get 2200 with hard work,  even without talent.  I think he is wrong.  Do you know something about this? 

FIDE

It's strange... some people are very intelligent, and they seem to work... but they don't really improve.

I'm not sure anyone knows why some people don't improve very much.

An adult beginner might becomes 2200, but it's very unlikely.

Both of you are kind of right... with ideal circumstances maybe it's possible, but ideal circumstances are rare.

Yes, only if you have enough time and money to invest on chess....

1) What rating does this guy have?

2)  If true, this is encouraging news for the smart working, little talent patzer.

He is a patzer like me.  But he said his coach was a GM (I doubt that he was a GM,  perhaps an IM).

I think he is wrong, as he believes that every adult can get 2200 with hard work.  This is simply not true. Some talent is needed,  an a guy like me with 56 and still a patzer (1620 in Daily Chess here) and highly untalented will be happy to get 1800 or 1900 with an immense amount of time,  energy and money. But not better. 

Didnt Lasker say that anyone can make Master?

Bobby said that.

I knew someone said it :-)

If we want to get technical, then the question is too vague. Obviously not anyone can do it, because some people are mentally deficient and would be lucky to learn all the rules. Or they're in a coma, etc.

Yes, we usually ignore these people when talking about this question, but perhaps the disagreement with your friend is that he's leaving out more people than you when he says "anyone."

And it's not just an ability to learn, intelligence, or an aptitude for chess. You can't separate people from their personalities, habits, quirks... most people don't find chess interesting. Most people are not willing to do a lot of work. So practically speaking, most people can't be 2200... but ideally speaking anyone can (we just conveniently leave out all the people who wont ever do it for example).

So the debate should focus on where we meet in the middle, between the extreme practical (some people are in a coma) and extreme ideal (we'll just ignore anyone who doesn't get to 2200).

Okay, I mean people who are ready to invest a lot of time in the game, let’s say at least five hours daily during 7 to 10, and excluding people who are in coma or highly mentally handicapped, of course.

But some people are really not talented: bad memory, poor visualisation skills, poor spatial orientation, poor analytical skills, etc. I still believe that a lot of adults with few talent for the game would never reach 2200. But perhaps I am just wrong.

Well, coma is just an extreme example to get the point across.

See, you're leaving out a lot of people yourself.

You're saying they have to have 5 hours a day (not everyone is able or willing to do that)

You're saying they have to be talented (some people have different meanings when they say "talent")

When people answer this question, they're mentally including and leaving out people.

Taking into account all the practical issues, and people's personality, we already have proof... just look at the real world statistics. 2200 is maybe the top 1% or so of chess players. So obviously not anyone can do it, because it's a rare rating.

 I don't think that I am particularly talented and I made master at 44 years old. 

Talent? There is no such thing.

My friend GM and FIDE Senior Trainer Stratos Grivas dismisses it as "the excuse of the lazy people". Chess abilities are not a gift- they can be earned by hard, systematic work.

While it is a fact that some people absorb studied material faster than the others,  there is no such thing as talent playing a major role in chess evolution.

Lasker was right, of course. My disagreement is about some "one-fits-all" study program. Personally, I make a different program for each one of my students after carefully weighting many facts about their play and knowledge, and prepare a special mix.

So far, no reasons to complain. Excluding a couple of cases where things went wrong for various reasons, it is working like a charm.

Ah yes, senior trainers who only take young students who are already 1800 or over. Then when the students are 2200 in a few years, the trainer proclaims "anyone can do it!"

If you think anyone can do it, then take people like the OP as student. Take 50 year old beginners and see how many masters you produce.

I agree people are often mistaken when it comes to talent, and that people often misunderstand chess improvement comes down to a lot of work, but if a coach / trainer wants to show "anyone can do it" lets me see the progress of their students who were adult beginners.

Money? Chess is not expensive, believe me on this one.

Did you begin already early to play regularly?

For coaches, travel, hotels, fees (if you want to play a lot of tournaments).