I don't think it's been established, nor was it intended to be established, that the set of people who have posted in this topic have worked hard on their chess game in the manner being postulated.
In other news, @DippinChicken counted through seven pages of comments, keeping careful count of ratings and unique posters. I think he likely has a good future ahead of him, with such attention to detail.
Genius is possible for anyman who wants it. Great thinkers have spoke of this; Emerson, Tolstoy, Whitman, Foucault, etc... The man who wrote the book Outliers, suggested that one of the most important things to genius, is drive, and incredible dedication. Look at Fisher, he lived, breathed and thought this game obessesively. Obviously he is (was) good. As Ayn Rand said, "[a man can achieve anything with hard work, but he may not himself, find a good enough reason to do so]"
The part where all people comfortable in commonality fall prey, is the forgotten notion that even the most brilliant among us, work harder than we can imagine to achieve. Their jackpot is not intelligence, or talent, but drive! Of course there is a mix to all of this, and yes genes matter!
Genius is possible for anyman who wants it. Great thinkers have spoke of this; Emerson, Tolstoy, Whitman, Foucault, etc... The man who wrote the book Outliers, suggested that one of the most important things to genius, is drive, and incredible dedication. Look at Fisher, he lived, breathed and thought this game obessesively. Obviously he is (was) good. As Ayn Rand said, "[a man can achieve anything with hard work, but he may not himself, find a good enough reason to do so]"
The part where all people comfortable in commonality fall prey, is the forgotten notion that even the most brilliant among us, work harder than we can imagine to achieve. Their jackpot is not intelligence, or talent, but drive! Of course there is a mix to all of this, and yes genes matter!
It's silly to give a few examples of people who have worked hard and achieved a lot... it's self evident that these examples will exist.
To support the claim that "genius is available to everyone who works obsessively" you must show that there are no examples of obsessive workers who failed to achieve greatness.
But here too it's self evident that these examples will exist. I don't understand people who support this idea that work will always yield progress. Either you haven't tried much in your own life and therefore haven't had the opportunity to experience lack of progress, or you're blind to examples of others who will have failed in this way.
I think the theory is that training is different from work. One might say that training is "managed work". Because, let's face it, 2000-level players make a TON of mistakes. Let's not hold them on some pedestal.
Yoey, just about all of us think of ourselves as normal. I made expert just after college. But just as Reb said, I am an extremist.
I was reading chess books in middle school and high school but didn't play in my first USCF tournament until I graduated from high school. (The state scholastic championship wasn't USCF rated in those days.) I really studied hard. In one summer, I probably studied chess for 10 hours a day on average.
If that sounds "normal" to you, then yes, a "normal" person can become an expert.
Heh, this is a good point. One summer I decided I was going to read some chess books and spent about 8 hours a day for 2 months straight studying the books... with an additional 2 hours a day of tactics :p and even that doesn't help a lot until you start playing a lot and incorporating the new knowledge.
(My recommendation for anyone who does this is force yourself to go to tournaments during these study periods even if you don't feel ready. That way you can practice working in the new knowledge as well as not get rusty with the basics like calculation and judgement).
I think the theory is that training is different from work. One might say that training is "managed work". Because, let's face it, 2000-level players make a TON of mistakes. Let's not hold them on some pedestal.
Elubas and I went over this once I think... he was saying it isn't obsessive work that makes you great, but using the right kind of work.
Well this special work, where by it's own definition will always yeild progress, isn't very convincing to me either, and certainly harder to support with evidence.
Mental ability isn't some intangible mystical thing, it's entirely contained in the physical brain. It's obvious that physical structure varies from person to person, imposing certain limitations on groups of people. I don't understand why it's so hard to make the small step to say the same will be true for intellectual endeavours. Especially when other definite mental differences, like personality, are immediately obvious to us.
Maybe reaching 2000 is comparable in difficulty to learning trigonometry.
Maybe. Classes in school are very structured, while most adult players, even if they take chess seriously, don't even approach chess with the same kind of structure and support from instructors that math education entails.
So if you related the chess beginner to someone who had never been exposed to math at all, Trig may be a good comparison.
My stance is that there are such things as average characteristics. You can be of average height, or average weight, or maybe even both. Combining every possible characteristic into the 'average person' is probably beyond reasonable. I don't see any reason that just because we are talking about mental characteristics that should be any different... but it will certainly be harder to quantify.
That's definitely impossible because the "average charactistics" are a) infinite, b) infinitely connected to each other, and c) constantly changing. So even if such a person were created, they would after a split second no longer fit the purpose they were created for, because they would have changed and so would have all the averages 
If you mean on chess.com: Yes, I'm an average person. :)
Well after reading all the comments let me rephrase:
One chess should have started as a child.
Two chess requires study and instruction.
Three chess students really need to play above their levels.
Okay I got that.
But how much is Chess dependent on aptitude?
Like everything it's a mix of Habits, hard work and aptitude.
I believe that for 2000+ you need much more than only aptitude.
I assume a person with a normal brain (let say IQ 90-110) CAN reach 2000, but would need to study a far amount, especially if he starts late in life.
DippinChicken wrote:
I can solve this one for you morons in one shot. This post has 104 players who have commented on it.. and only FOUR of you has a rating over 2000. Amazed how many of you dumbasses believe just hard work will yield results that 100 of you don't have.
...yet
In any case, my argument is for the negative (even though I have been over 2100 on this site)
If I manage to win a game where I am ahead a queen, rook, and knight, I will be 2000 again.
Any average player can become an IM with effort.
If he or she works like a dog for 2 - 3 years (and I mean 6 - 8 hours a day), develops a very sound opening repertoire as black - has a balanced repertoire with white (be prepared to play lines to try and seize the initiative) you WILL succeed. Im a 2300 FM and to be perfectly honest in 1989/90 had I "pushed on" I would have made GM. Now I am going after my IM title which I will get within the next 2 years. So yes, if you put the time in you will be rewarded.
FM Robin Moss
Glad to hear someone take an objective view of things and base their opinion on facts without being biased by their personal experiences or preferences. 
The easy way to answer this question is to look at the average rating of people in countries where chess training is a compulory part of primary education, such as Armenia.
Unfortunatley I can't find that info on the web.
I didnt know there was a place where chess was mandatory.
Average people don't play chess.
While we are going at it why not make it 2600? Since most players came from average somewhere regardless of age. If the answer is yes? How does one gain it? Through dedication of effort, time, resources etc.. to the pursuit of improving one's game. At the cost of what?
We have this discussion right here because we all love chess, we all like to compete and improve our game.
Thanks for all the encouragement and as well as the matter-of-fact comments.
But the truth is chess isn't played on average. You want average? Check out you tube. Chess.com have 16 million members on a world population of around 6 Billion. That is not average.
Chess is also called the Royal Game. Royalty is certainly not average. While a 1400 rating here might be considered average that person is a contender in his own place among his friends.
No, a 2000 rating is certainly above average in a game that is above the average in the world.
I can solve this one for you morons in one shot. This post has 104 players who have commented on it.. and only FOUR of you has a rating over 2000. Amazed how many of you dumbasses believe just hard work will yield results that 100 of you don't have.