Becoming a Grand Master

Hi!

According to a lot of sources, it takes at least 10 years of study to become a Grand Master. How can it be that this takes so long? And 10 years from what rating? How much study?

I know that one needs to have the deep positional understanding all prominent players have, but why can't this be achieved over a couple of months?

Answers from especially titled players would be awesome!

Thanks

I think someone with photographic memory and access to all opening books and thousands of top rates games between GMs and engines could probably do it in a few days but I highly doubt they would want to play chess instead of doing rocket science or something.

Is there a master that has ever claimed this!?

 Yup, thats what they say in the book talent is overrated(not really a book about chess but about expertise)  10,000 hours of "conscious" practice.  In chess case not just waving pieces around.  But, ACTIVELY working on something.  Maybe it is defending positions, maybe it is calculation(tactics), maybe it is positional understanding. 

There are several hints that will tell you you are doing "conscious" practice. 

1.  you can't do it for very long periods of time.  It is draining and after more than about an hour and a half or 2 you will not want to continue. 

2. there is a specific objective. already sort of alluded to a few examples. 

3.  It must be difficult and push past your present abilities.  I can see a draw with king and rook pawn in a split second.  Obviously working on king and rook pawn ending is not very productive. 

A very strong pool player once told me I should practice shots which I make about 70-80 percent of the time.  It builds confidence(because you make most of them) but it also is challenging enough to where you have to "work" at it.

I've never met someone with photographic memory that can't think tho lol, I think if they watch enough games with the best possible counter almost every middle game move and at least as much endgame books as a chess engine then they could be that good.I think talent and genes are underrated in games and sports

yeah 10 years of exquistie practice

Anyways check out these links

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGvdLm-eF-g

http://www.chess.com/news/youngest-master-in-american-history

I strongly believe that someone with way above average intellect or photographic memory and possibly forced to learn/eat healthy/exercise by the government or parents be a GM in a very short time period

Also, I just did the math and this last year i played 500 hours or 22 days blitz games so at that rate I will have to play 20 years to become master >< wish me luck lol

Everyone talks about carlsen as the greatest natural talent.  Even carlsen who started at age 8 (and was taught by his countries top player agdestein according to wiki) needed 5 years to reach gm level. 

how much time do you think he was putting in in those years?  Well copied from wiki once again

"Carlsen was given a year off from elementary school to participate in international chess tournaments during the fall season of 2003"

Here's the thing tho - They started to play at very young age and I would argue that children below the age of 6 doesn't understand much logic, wheter it be chess logic or human logic.

If someone with photographic memory or above average intellect who only started to play when they're above 16 years old but below 27 could probably achieve those ratings within days/weeks/months

 Well, I guess its a good thing carlsen started at 8

some of us just aren't cut out for GM.  it is way, way more than just a set amount of study hours.

There is some reason to think Morphy may have had a photographic memory, seeing that he memorized the entire Civil Code of Louisiana when he was 19. Fischer was said to to have been able to memorize a conversation in Icelandic, a language he hadn't studied or understood, on hearing it only once.

And they suck without predetermined opening/end moves as well so to be really good you need to be good at 1 and at least mediocre at the other.I guess we'll never know until someone with a photographic memory in early adulthood starts to learn chess real hardcore

 I never said he did(if he does I didn't know).  My point was simply he had been playing for a long time with lots of directed practice(with very experienced coaches)

Yes as I mentioned because they probably choose to use their talent to do something else other than being a chess GM but judging by the way chess engines works and the # of possible moves in middle game with each opening, theorically they could do it in a few days if someone had prepared most of the best possible moves after each opening.Humans can actually think so they won't make msitakes like a chess engine without endgame table

I think this kind of experiment could only happen in the few countries that are still living under fascist dictatorships.

How long it takes to be good at something depends on each indivudual's talents, enviroment, diet, indoctornation, etc.

About that, I don't think you need to worry, most countries still live under fascist dictatorships. I hardly think that Stalin is what we need right now either.

And yes, instead of trying to start a world revolution on fast food basis, you could try to play some chess.

But they prioritize on forcing children to exercise and forcing the masses to eat healthy food to be good at sports for the olympics instead of chess, obviously I'm not talking about countries in europe.

http://www.amazon.com/Talent-Overrated-Separates-World-Class-Performers/dp/1591842948/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1295148815&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.com/Talent-Code-Greatness-Born-Grown/dp/055380684X/ref=pd_sim_b_1

http://www.amazon.com/Bounce-Federer-Picasso-Beckham-Science/dp/0061723754/ref=pd_sim_b_2#_

and Its getting old finding more and more books

. 

Everyone who researches the elite realizes it does MOSTLY come down to practice, coaching and actually wanting to be good(ie motivation).  You can believe what you want.  BUt, the research highly indicates you are wrong.   

If we are talking about athletics that is one thing(being 7 foot tall you have a better chance at the nba).  But, in this game anyone with a brain and time to study can get better.

I must add that the Blank Slate is a book which states the other side of the coin....You might be interested in that.  Why don't you take a look at the blank slate and talent is overated and then decide for yourself if you still have the same stance?