anyone can be a super GM

Agreed. Anyone can be strong at chess with hard work. But super GMs are walking brains to go along with hard work. This thread is nuts.

Rosenbalm. You make generalisation about IQ. Skills which are crucial in chess are only part of that test. And as far as i know this test doesn't require extreme memory.

Not really. I don't really agree that IQ equals ELO rating. I just cited the study.

I do agree that visuospatial ability is crucial to grandmastery in chess. That and long term memory. As for the other elements of intelligence measured in an IQ test, I don't know if they play a role or not.

Yes, memory is important. Do you know how much theory you have to digest to play at the GM level? With tons of study you probably could get by with just above average memory, but people who have a better memory can study the same amount of time and remember more than you. Advantage to the one with better memory.

Ofcourse anyone can be a Super GM in their DREAMS...why not?! dreams are free...

My point is that there are so many people in the world, and chess is very, very competitive. If hard work and study alone were enough, there would be no such thing as super GMs. The smallest advantages are often very telling. And at the super GM level, having a better inborn ability to see the board and understand the pieces relative to one another in space, and remember theory, is decisive.

To say that the average person, even with a million years of study, could play at that level is preposterous. If you don't have the neurons you just don't have them. Good luck in a future life.

I recently saw a photo of Samuel Reshevsky at 8 years old playing a simul against various masters. he beat most of them. At eight years of age he must have had something beyond hard work and study.

Given enough time I suppose anybody could become a GM , in a parallel universe :)

You are smart. And correct.

Although I hate the thought that some children are better after playing ten games than I will ever be in my entire life, the truth is that I play for the love of chess, and I will continue to play and improve. There will always be people around my level that I can compete with. It's all for the love of the game.

I would be happy with 2000 points. I don't know if I can ever see 2000 points.

Even though you're a bit prone to hyperbole (> ... some children are better after playing ten games than I will ever be in my entire life, maybe ayy lmaos can pick up chess so fast) I certainly do believe some people have more potential.

Check out these links I posted in another thread:

https://goo.gl/8yGwzI
http://goo.gl/6ciYHW
http://goo.gl/8k3KuR 

I am no authority on the matter, but I would surmise that a FIDE rating of 2000, or even Expert level (2100+) is obtainable by just about anyone willing to put in the time and work at it. Maybe even people of below average intelligence. Now of course some people will have to work harder and longer to acheive the same results, but becoming an expert is doable.

Very rarely do I play up to my potential. I often make moves without hardly thinking - I am very impatient. But I have found that when I take my time, get all my pieces involved, and play according to the principles, I don't even need to calculate more than two or three moves ahead to get good results. 

Interesting links.

Yes, anyone can be a SGM...with several lifetimes of study and the right DNA.  

Practice makes perfect...

Anyone can be ITM in poker tournaments...

No this is not true not everyone can even make it to 2000 even if they studied all day everyday. Its all about natural talent. Look at myself for example i have no natural talent. ive been putting 2-3 hours a day and playing for about 2 and a half months and im an 1100 player. If someone with more talent played the same amount of time i did they would probably be about 1600-1700 by now. unforutentely not everyone can be good.

IM yes GM no

I am about a 1500 player. I haven't played standard or blitz since I first began playing so those ratings are awful. I am getting so much better just by understanding theory and studying the endgame.

In my opinion the endgame is what you should spend all your time studying. I am nowhere near good enough to be an authority on it but understanding the nature of each piece is very important and the endgame is where you learn it better than anywhere.

Im not sure why you think 2 and a half months is a long time, chess is easy to learn but hard to master, its going to take 1000+ games. Although ratings are unimportant and on this site can be misleading, I dont see atall why someone who spends a significant amount of time learning and mastering the game couldnt make it to master level.