That is what I was saying. But the other posters seem to suggest that one shouldn't even bother trying....that one shouldn't even make an attempt to put yourself on the road, no matter how slow your progress.

Heh, billyblatt, you're either a kid or a troll.

nah I have a massive problem just blindly echoing what everybody else is saying...

Well it comes off as someone who's discovered information for the first time and believes no one else has this information or has considered these things.  Attitude is important?  Of course.  And e.g. Kaufman.  I don't know about anyone else, but I didn't respond to that because it's old news.  Estragon was nice enough to re-post the info/logic above.

Sure! Anyone can become a GM, just as much as anyone can run 100 meters dash in under 10 seconds...

yes everybody can do it

What I don't like though is that people on both sides often try to act like they can actually know the answer, when really the issue of people becoming great players is just so complex. No, it's not as simple as "top players work hard, therefore it's all hard work"; nor is it "This guy can play 15 blindfolded games at the same time; he must have been born being able to do it." Even if you take a group of 15 kids who have never played, even if they show different skill levels, we don't know what kinds of different things or even attitudes each kid was exposed to in their first few years of life -- you can almost always find ambiguities like these in almost any argument on this topic, so I don't think people should act like we have a clear cut answer.

@Elubas
Both sides?  I haven't read all 33 pages but it seems at least lately only one side is represented here.  Those who say attitude (or hard work) can take you anywhere.  The others are just saying that's stupid.

Can we divide this up by age category then talk about it. KInda tricky to see who is talking by which age or etc after missing about a day of not reading this trhead.

I'm not sure of my English, but I thought "either...or" was an exclusive alternative...

billyblat seems to have trouble realizing the fundamental logical flaw. He is pointing out to example of GMs saying it's possible to become - obviously it is, otherwise there would be no GM, duh. But that is not the question. There is also a recordman of the tallest man in the world, but that does not mean everyone can become the tallest man in the world if he spends his days in a stretching machine and eats the good chemicals.

Said otherwise, you have a property quantified by a number (Elo rating/performance) that you can change with work. The question is whether you can make into the top 0.0001% with only work. billyblat's argument is that there are people in the top 0.0001% thus it must be possible. Hmmm...

The question of whether it is possible for everyone is hurting the myth of "everyone can do everything" on which the western societies are built in a more or less large part. But it does not change the fact that it is just a myth. For sure it is more glamorous to defend than the reality, but well, it's the way things are.

Oh, and the appeal to consequences is appealing too. If I understand well his last posts, we would spread false rumors to prevent others to become GM - and strangely, it must have affected his own rating, even if he does not believe us. And we are just a blind crowd repeating what we heard without having any arguments. Hmm... I guess we need more argumentation like this :

So to summarise the last 33 pages .

Can anyone become a GM? No. 

Will a random 6 yr old become a GM if you put them on the best training regimen? Small chance, but they'll likely turn out better than the majority of us patzers.

I guess 'No'  .. Chances are there , player getting died due to heart attack or road accident before GM finals. "Luck" shd favour . 

Opponent shd also favour us by making wrong moves :)))

My answer is "No".
One question to those who say "Yes"; can everyone of you become a GM?

yeah you seem to be misreading everything...

Well, they can in theory, but will not because they prefer to do other things. Factly, they even have something else to do than win 200 rating points to reach 1400, but it would be easy to do in a couple of games.

But they know they can. It's sure. No way it could be different.

I'm not trying to convince anyone what is possible for themselves. I am saying outright some things are not possible for anyone (not merely for some individual I'm trying to convince) who fit particular criteria. 

Adults who start playing chess and who are not already extremely strong players will never become GMs, just as adults who learn a new language for the first time will always be distinguishable from native speakers of that language. There is more going on that mere willpower.

I would never tell an adult they can't improve if they work hard. And thinking I'm saying "no, if you just started chess at 25 you will never be a GM, sorry" is the same as saying "Hey, you're an adult and you just started, go jump off a bridge 'cause you shouldn't even try at this game" is simply a complete misreading of what I'm saying. 

Someone who is 26, who has never played any sport in their life, and suddenly decides they want to be an NFL starting QB is not going to succeed at that goal. Someone who is in their mid-40s and decides they want to win the Boston Marathon outright (not just an agegroup even) though they've never run before in their life will die disappointed.  Someone who is in their mid-30s and decides to take up a scientific field with the goal of winning a Nobel prize isn't going to get there. 

The reason for all of the above is not limitations of human spirit and will, it's limitations of human biology as we age.

But heck, if I were the coach of a whizz kid who made her first IM norm at 13, I'd still be trying to get her to focus not on some ultimate goal of being a GM, but on the immediate goal of winning the next tournament, or improving 10 more rating points, or whatever would be most appropriate for her immediate needs. 

Why?

Because improvement happens faster when you have (a) immediate feedback, and (b) short term, realisitc goals that feed the improvement cycle, and (c) continued adjusting of those goals to meet immediate needs.

I'll go so far as to say that the idea of the GM title being a good goal is one I'd even question.  Why? Because it is not an achievement that is within one's individual control. Plenty of people have, by dint of bad luck, missed out on a norm. Even though they did everything they should be doing, the chess gods didn't smile on them, and the opportunity passed. Goals that are not 100% within the control of the person making the goals are flawed in a significant way, in that you can do everything right and still fail to reach the goal. Good goals are those where if you do everything right, then the goal is reached definitionally. But the quality of the goal itself is actually a slightly different discussion from if it is in anyway based in reality. 

Very well said. Theoretically, they can...:)
Some of the chess masters (IM, FM, NM & etc.) want to become GM.
Can all of them become GM? 

Can Anyone Become Grandmaster?

:

My original answer was YES! And seriously believed nobody here could change it.

Well while playing at Chess.com i saw the Fuse Ad here!!  And immediately i want to say no and have to say NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I saw one of the dumbest rich people ever. Give them an idiot money and somehow how they manage to do things you can not and do it just because they can. By no means do i ever want to see the chick below become an GM. I will quit chess and eat my hate. Better i will eat everybody's unwanted chess books live at chess.com if this ever became a reality: WGM Kardashian. I can not count the number of stupid things she has done. If you do not know here think of shortest marriage know around the world that was planned by the individual spending millions and getting married for that person to just end it.

No! The Kim Kardashian Khess Klub!  Sounds stupid but look who she is with Kanye.  Odds on favor it was because his name started with a K. So a picture of a Kningt on WGM Karardashian book  and King Kanye.

The other side would be those who assume that simply because someone has an ability that is way outside of their current level (for example, a beginner watching a GM play bullet -- of course it will look magical and incomprehensible), that this must be a testament to their genius (yet anyone with a ton of patterns in their head will make Einstein look stupid on a chess board). It doesn't mean it isn't a testament to their genius either; I'm just saying there are more complexities to the nature vs nurture debate that don't make the answer as clear cut as we would like to believe.

On the other side as you have said, there are people who think hard work can create anything. It depends on what you consider "anything," because you can always find something a human can't and will never be able to do, as in the example I gave with Magnus Carlsen earlier.

I guess I could call it stupid, but I don't see the point of throwing in that word when I can do just as well without it by simply pointing out the problem with the reasoning. I can do the latter without doing the former.