Can Anyone Become Grandmaster?

No. 

yes, if they train hard enough.. 

ponz111 wrote:

Solve my puzzle on the Ponziani forum and you can be above a grand master.

But practically speaking few have the inborn talent to become a grand master.

Yep. That's the entry fee.

If anyone follows this thread, they are on their way.

chess is not maths. John Nunn became a GM, but as a mathematician he didn't solve any major mathematics problem (not to my knowledge).

Anybody can try his best to become a chess grandmaster. However only one out of thousands can succeed.

Unless you solve a Ponz riddle.

Oh, I see, so you're contending that the trick is that those thousands, if not millions, of players are just all doing it wrong and if they only used the super secret sauce they'd make progress? 

Sorry, that's just loads of  BS.

Don't get me wrong, I do appreciate the importance of good study and practice habits in many fields. And I agree that good study habits will lead to better results in chess as well. But the notion that we don't have any examples of adults becoming GM's because they're all just too lazy and ignorant of the right training methods is ludicrous in the extreme.

I'm a club regular. I know a few of the typical players we're talking about. They take lessons from IMs. They work hard. But they don't improve signifciantly.  

I do think there is a ton to be said about studying the "right" way -- there are an infinite amount of ways to study. In fact even grandmasters, while they may have consensus on some things like "study tactics," (even then, how do we study these tactics?) they often give all sorts of different advice.

I don't think terms like "good study habits" really do justice to the complexities of it -- it's not just how many methods there are -- there are also a ton of different attitudes you can have while doing it. I have been working hard to improve at my chess for several years; that doesn't mean I was always working on the right thing. I have worked in many different ways, with varying levels of enthusiasm; some ways worked well, others didn't.

That doesn't mean I am arguing that adults starting out can become grandmaster -- because personally, I simply don't think they can. But I don't think it's fair to assume that it's easy to cluster study all into either "working hard," or not. Ten people might say they work hard; I wouldn't be surprised if each of those ten people all, nonetheless, studied in distinctly different ways from each other.

My friends mom is a GM.

My friend is also a great mom.

chess is similar to maths and logic. you could say it is 'applied logic'.

john nunn obtained a PhD from Oxford with a focus on a really difficult branch of maths-algebraic topology if I remember correctly. and getting a PhD from Oxford in mathematics is still an EXTREMELY high achievement.

he might have chosen chess for various reasons but i find his approach to chess very academic. who would write a 300 page book on the 6.Bg5 najdorf or who would write a 200 page book on rook vs rook+pawn endgame.

so, yes, people are basically who they are, and there is little room to move around.

environment does influence your life, but normally, like fluids, your experience take the shape of the container.

but then again, some really smart people have challenged this notion.

'the mind is not a vessel to be filled but rather like a fire to be kindled'

-von Humboldt, quoted by Chomsky

that said, chomsky still believes that genetic factors determine who we are and that you don't learn much in the course of one life.

Anybody can be a GM but you might not a good one

and i have to believe they even call the bad ones bums

if they get beat by an IM player.

I sense anger and frustration in this thread.

Chess breaks a man

We now know that  evironment influeces different levels of (epi)genetic regulation, as well as development. If Carslen had a long lost identical twin, it is entirely plausible that he may not be 2800GM, having not discovered chess, or aplied his "mind" elsewhere.

true. but to say that the right exposure to stuff will cause markedly different development of intellectual faculties cannot be true. there are poor people who forge ahead in life whereas many empires have been disintegrated due to the child of a great emperor to turn out into a nincompoop.

in my local chess club, there is one kid who is quite arrogant about chess yet he is totally worthless, he calls a bishop three pawns and he always only counts material. another kid, with whom he somehow has close games, unconsciously sacs unimportant pawns, pauses and looks which piece to recapture an exchange with etc..

they both have the same coach.

I absolutely agree with that. I have taught several different subjects in my life: martial arts, scuba, music and philosophy. Within each of those disciplines, there are some key things that, to get really good, one must do. But there is great latitude for individual interpretation and expression around 'how' those tasks are tackled. 

I'm not dismissing the importance of good study skills, correct pedagogy, and the right attitude in the student. Indeed, I do believe most people in most subjects are limited more by how they tackle their studies than they are by their own actual aptitudes and limits.  But even if the average chess player could jump 2 classes (400 rating points) by doing those things better (which is a huge difference in outcomes), the average chess player would move from being a C player to an A player, not to a GM.  Even experts (who are already in the top 4% of all chess players in the world, would "only" improve to being FMs. 
 

Positive exposure will make a significant difference in metal/physical capabilities, but everybody has their limits. If you enjoy playing chess at an early age and are encouraged to do so, you will likely get fairly good at it. Just how good depends on your "limits". Genius requires exposure, but exposure doens't necessary create genius.

OK, so, anyone can become a GM, but he has to work like a slave for 30 years, and additionnally, use the "good" training method.

And this method is unknown for now.

Fine.

Anyone can also grow over 2 meters, it just needs the good diet. Which has not been found yet, but it exists, I know it, because... huh... if it didn't exist, it would be unfair.

even i think that the lines are quite fuzzy here, but what is the standard deviation of the distribution is a matter of debate and perhaps experimentation.

btw, this argument is often framed for if and how different countries can produce the same quality of research. sometimes, whether females are as 'good' as males in science. larry summers got into a great controversy when he stated at harvard that men have a higher 'variance' of capabilities so that it is more likely to have male outliers/geniuses. a female biologist from MIT walked out of that lecture on the spot. also, one of the most brilliant computer scientists in the world is a woman, barbara liskow or something is her name.

it is not my intention at all to get into a political debate but how far you can get with 'hard work' i don't know. to genuinely talented people hard work is not hard at all.