anyone can be a super GM

I wouldn't know, I've only skimmed the surface of statistics last year in advanced math, before we started doing derrivitves in preparation of calculus.

Thanks for explanation of those terms:)

Yes.  They would be about 4 standard deviations to the right of "high preformers" 

Like I've said, I don't know much about statistics, so I can't judge how the bell curve should look like and where the deviations should be at; I just thought about how there are many different-ranked players, and that it is only logical that there are more people rated at about where I fluxuate than there are below average or above average, decreasing in quantity from where the average is.

So you suggest that no matter how hard we try, some of us will never be able to play super chess, because we are just common mortals...

I think there's two separate parameters: the amount of natural talent and the amount of work that a person puts in. I agree that the natural talent would follow a bell curve-most people would be average, and there would be a few (as suggested early, a tiny dot at the high end of the plot showed on the last page). It would seem to me that the people who accomplish super GM status are those who are at the very far end of the natural talent spectrum and who have put in an incredible amount of effort. The next tier of players would be composed of those who are perhaps slightly less naturally talented (in comparision to super GMs, but would still be on the high side of the curve), but have put in a similar amount of effort, and those who are quite naturally talented, but didn't put in as much work. 

There certainly exists some level to which anyone who has the will/determination to do well at chess, who has the opportunity/means (meaning they have the money to hire a coach, to buy chess books, they live near other people that will challenge them in terms of ability level/are willing to play with them, and they have the time to invest-they don't have to work all the time or have hefty family obligations), and who puts in the work can reach, but it's not GM level. Maybe that's 1500, maybe that's 2000, but it's not >2500.

He sure did put serious effort into it, and he has more talent than most.

I'm hearing a lot of rationalization for people's lack of talent in here.

anyone can if they try hard

Lol, it was funny when people posted threads asking "can anyone become an IM." It began to become absurd when people posted threads asking "can anyone become a GM." Now with this post, I think these posters have completely lost their sanity. Is this even a question you can ask with a straight face? Of course not everybody can become a super GM! I can only blame such naive thinking on our public school system, which tells children they can do anything they set their mind to.

I wouldn't say these people are necessarily stupid exactly -- the fundamental point that a person can become much better at something he was bad at is sound -- it's just that when applied to being a super GM it's a little out of touch with reality, perhaps out of an underestimation of what a super GM entails. It's possible to be a smart person and mostly argue soundly and deeply with the points they consider but just overlook key points that make the whole thing collapse.

Certainly there have been times where I have made arguments that were backed by logic, but turned out badly because I looked at things too narrowly. So I'm not one who tends to make comments like "If you think this, you are automatically stupid." Smart people can have stupid opinions sometimes.

not bad at all and who is gonna start it ?

From what I've heard recently, there seems to be quite a bit of truth in that...

Just gets funnier and funnier.

I tried it-too many characters!!

-Nature or Nurture: Do you think top chess players are born with a natural ability/gift or do they become so talented through hard work and the right environment?

-There might be some natural limits, but I think we are far from them. Some things are much more difficult to change, but they can still be changed! I think what some people call IQ can be changed drastically, easier at a younger age, but also at any other age. Memory can also be improved very much by working hard on it. Of course, there are also inborn differences in people and with the same training one will get better than the other, but as we are very far from the limitations – hard work and proper training matter a lot. I am pretty sure that an average (even below average) 5 year old kid can became a 2600 player before the age of 18 with proper training and support. Also, when I look some years back into the past, I think I see people who became smarter by working and trying hard.                                                                        

http://www.onlinechesslessons.net/2011/09/28/dragan-solak-how-be-chess-grandmaster-series/

Barring that, you can just append GM_ to the front of your chess.com username.

One thread to rule them all - great idea!

You'd have a 33.3% chance if your learn at aged 4 and you have Lazlo Polgar as your father.