Are most chess players autodidacts?

Could they get by without ever taking chess lessons in the same sense as going to college but never attending any courses and still pull A's?

Most of us are autoerotic rather than autodidactic.

It's an impressive feat if you managed to get yourself to that rating without ever attending any courses. You would be the type of student in college who could get by without ever attending any classes and ace the exams. 

i think if you have a good GENERAL UNDERSTANDING of the game, know the basic principles of chess, than you might be successful on your own; but then again the mentioned above can not come to you just like that, you need to study even the smallest amount of theory

autists but not autodidacts

One thing I realize is this, most of the replies I get from these forum questions i start are people within the 1700-1999 range. Why is that? Like if there's a response, most likely, the person who has the answer is over 1700. Never I have ever gotten any response from anyone in the lower range. So obviously, there's something you do understand that I don't, which allows you to write your answer so simply.

I learned the game as a child, but only started studying it seriously in high school and college. I didn't have any coaches. I don't know anyone in my state who did have a coach back then. I know I could have been a much stronger player if I'd had a good coach to guide me. 

riv4l: i good question will create good answers if you understand what i mean, it is an art to ask to correct question, as it contains a good part of the answer. You posted a correct and interesting question!

a good coach will open your eyes and will direct his attention where you lack knowledge or understanding, on your own you will not be able to that

Might not be true. You might not realize it but you may have already reached your full potential as a chessplayer and you got to this point by self-teaching which is highly impressive.

Sometimes I doubt my questions contain any part of the answer as I am never satisfied with any answers I get.

after years & years - I'm still learning on my own.

Sometimes I fail to see the value in structured education.

In my 50-plus years as a beginner, I have had hundreds of teachers: almost everyone I ever played a game against.  Especially the games that I didn't win.  And, your question leads to another question: If you could teach yourself chess without ever playing the game, what would be the point?

I am learning that many people who start threads asking questions really don't want their questions answered. They already have fixed opinions that won't be changed.

Honestly, I've seen that stubbornness more in people who claim to be autodidacts than in those with university educations. I don't think that's a coincidence. Universities bring together intelligent, knowledgeable people with differing perspectives. Universities challenge their students with these differing perspectives, and teach them how to accept valid arguments and perspectives.

Autodidacts are often so proud of their independently gained knowledge that they do not allow it to be challenged.

In terms of chess, I said that I know I would be a better player if I had a good coach. Most competitive chess players do know their own strengths and weaknesses. I good coach would have helped me to address my weaknesses more directly than I did. And he (or she) would have been able to give me additional encouragement. This is an essential element of coaching that is often not discussed. Confidence is a large part of success in any sport. Chess, which is the quintessential mind game, requires tremendous confidence! It's no coincidence that every world champion since WWII had coaches.