Depends on what "that good" is.
If you want to seriously improve at chess, you do need to be willing to commit many hours of your time to studying and playing the game. You need to be playing tournaments most weekends and studying or practicing when you're not playing. Do that for a long time, and maybe you can eventually be "that good". But you have to be willing to work hard. If you're not, then you can just play the game for fun, but know that as you get older it gets harder to improve.
Morphy might be a great example. He never took chess seriously, and hated when others called him a chess player.
anyone who is good at chess has played more long time controls games then most people could dream of. I have played over 2,000 long games on chess com and am a pushover for good players.
I dont care if someone has the best natural apptitude for the game of all time, they are not likely to beat me without having played a decent number of games themselves.
Chess is mostly "pattern recognition". Especially tactics, which is probably the most important skill in chess. Some people are born tall, some fast, some slow, and some are born with "off the charts" ability in pattern recognition.
A person like Morphy, with no computer help, no chess databases, limited competition, very few chess books, and yet he still managed a FIDE rating of probably 2400 - 2600 strength. And, he did this at a very young age. I think a lot of it is genetic and/or innate.
What, what are the odds that someone might be a GM without ever taking chess seriously in his life? Quintillion to 000000000.1%, to slim, to none...
Morphy might be a great example. He never took chess seriously, and hated when others called him a chess player.
+1
I think I can't say 'obssessed' but rather I can use the word, passionate or driven.
Nevertheless, Can an individual be 'that good' in chess without being obssessed in chess?
There are two things that determines how good someone becomes at chess: (1) natural ability (2) motivation.
If a person is naturally good at chess and dedicates themselves to spending a reasonable amount of time on studying and playing chess, then they can become a really great player. But if that person is not naturally good at chess and spends the same amount of time studying the game, then that person will not be as good. If a person does not spend a lot of time studying the game, but is naturally good at it to begin with, then there is a chance (albeit not likely) that that person will become an overall good chess player.
I think I can't say 'obssessed' but rather I can use the word, passionate or driven.
Nevertheless, Can an individual be 'that good' in chess without being obssessed in chess?