Can Anyone Become Grandmaster?

Not saying you are wrong in saying there is talent involved, but those numbers really don't proof anything. Probably at least 12 000 of those 13 000 so called competitive chess players still don't play or train nearly as much as the GM's do. There is a difference between playing/training 5 and 10 hours a day, and there is also the difference between playing/training 10 and 11 or even 11,5 hours a day. And there's also the quality of the training.

Exactly. There are so many other tangible factors to consider that it's just plain odd to go into hypotheticals like talent and IQ.

Strangely enough, in this thread, it's something that close to none can do that is thought to be pretty easy.

The huge correlation between low ratings and the belief that everything is possible that everyone can see here is quite a tell. As well as the appeal to logical fallacies ("they don't have the balls" - call to feelings, "come on man let's play a game to prove my point", etc.)

Of course, the fact that dumb people defend one side of an issue and smart people the other side does not mean that the smart people are right. But it makes a heavier burden of proof on the shoulders of the dumb people.

So i guess im dumb but at the same time im right... well thanks for the compliment/insult sir... 

Even if you win your "challenge" you won´t prove anything.

Take a debate that's perfectly analytical and objective in nature and before you know it it's become purely subjective and personal. Really, you gotta love the Internet.

At least i'll prove that i am better than him but he wont accept my challenge and told me on my wall as you can see on my profile that "i have the better attitude" so in my eyes, he backed down. when someone calls you out you challenge them like a man and if you lose you accept the fact that you losed, hit the drawing board again and come back ready to fight again. 

possibly, through intense study..... you could possibly reach GM in a lifetime

but to be a super gm, to be the best of the best, to be a magnus carlsen your gonna have to have something else, something more

trevinlmurray,  possibly, through intense study..... you could possibly reach GM in a lifetime

but to be a super gm, to be the best of the best, to be a magnus carlsen your gonna have to have something else, something more

I definetely understand that bro, long story short, wilhiem stientz was once the greatest til he met emanuel lasker then emanuel lasker met capablanca, then capablanca met alekhine, point is, theres always someone better than you as a over all player, dont get frustrated over that, but to get to the 2400+ level, no its not fucking impossible like people say it is, yes there is a huge difference in 2400 and 2700+ but to GET IN THE CIRCLE basically in the mix of all the grandmasters, no its not like you need to have a sky rocket iq, just hard work and dedication and the biggest ingredient BELIEF, and closed minded to negative people. 

What do you need to do to become a GM? I mean if you need to win a bunch of competitions then I'm thinking you'd need to notch up a winning streak over a longish period of time. I think that is what some of the IMs are trying to say above - that it's hard to sustain genius form over a period of time. Can't be all down to prep. It's a sport like any other, so you'd need to be in form at the time of competitions and all. Even Anand was apparently out of form.

You know what man, im a researher and a chess/hiphop fanatic. lol and i will tell you why MAGNUS CARLSEN is MAGNUS CARLSEN... His dad has an elo of 2000+ , his older his sister has an elo of 2000+ and his dad is friends with the past Norway champion so mix all that up... before magnus was born his father knew he wanted to raise a world champion before dude came out the wound, his father dedicated his whole life to "TRAINING" him and had the Norway champion at the time "train" him since day one, so basically he was a normal kid who has a "michael jackson's father" type of dad, if you seen the jackson 5 movie you'll know what im talking about "Michael Jacksons dad made sure his sons where the best singing group and if one of them messed up while practicing he'd beat the ever lasting shit out of them so michael being scared the most of course he wasnt gonna mess up singing and dancing" so i guess to get to that level you need a parent who is obssessed with with whatever they love and will sacrifice their own child's childhood to reach a greater level. and thats what happened with Magnus. End of story. lol

All kids are normal depending on how you define it.  Even if he had a Polgaresque training as a kid it still takes nothing away from his accomplishments.  When I was 12 I laughed at South Park (back in those days it was actually funny and not overly gross) whereas Magnus as a kid would watch it and think, "this is stupid" and change the channel to an independent film channel or science channel.

Today when hot babes hit on him he probably says, "sorry ladies, I got important chess stuff to do" whereas any other guy would be like, "Woo!  Oh hell yeah!"  In other words his maturity level is leagues beyond the mean. 

you make a pretty good point! 

Ellen Carlsen is 1931 not 2000+

http://ratings.fide.com/card.phtml?event=1505416

OMFG IM OFF BY 69 POINTS BIG DEAL!!! [No vulgar language please, Mod.], POINT IS THEY ARE ALL AT HIGH LEVELS!!!!!!

i think theirs nothing to special on the person and when their is they are very powerfull i think alot of people are cable of this level of chess its how you choose to learn it or your only way of learning and improveing might be inefficient

I really think that it depends on the chess books you buy also, I highly recommend "Dvoresky's endgame manual" i study that everyday, "bobby fischers teaches chess "tactics"  chess openings for black/white, ever since i started studying hard my rating jumped 200 points in a month now im doing the samething, im studying more and more before i get ready to play more and do another rating jump. The best chess player here (In North Carolina) IM Jonathan Shcrorer said something i think everyone should understand, he said "If all you do is play chess with no study then your a coffee house player (medicore) and if all you do is study chess then your a "book player" basically like he said, its a mix, you got to have the experience and you also have to have the knowledge, like Maurice Ashley said, after 4 moves there are 300,000,000,000 different possibilites of positions so you need to be as equipmed as possible but also have a great deal of experience so nothing is new to you. And i also prefer a chess engine, doesnt matter , fritz, houndini, etc. there all smart ass computer, and id use that to figure out how to maximize your openings and look over your games and figure out what you did wrong so you can be better next time around. 

because you can study till your hearts contents for many years, but your never gonna have the same intutiion or understanding as magnus has

magnus is a 1/10000 type player, you dont see them alot, no matter how much you study

yeah i think he is the new Bobby Fischer, of course he will never be greater than him, in my eyes, but in this new generation thats how he is looked up as. I just hope he doesnt quit like Bobby did cause Bob could have took over chess longer than anybody, i remember watching a video of GM Roman Dzindzichashvili ( yeah i had to look up his last name lol) and he said he played bobby after bobby stopped playing for 8 years and still beat him... after 8 years of not playing!!! thats freaking genius to not play that long and still have it like you did yesterday! idk, but personally my favorite player is Mikhail Tal because i kinda play like him, i make ridiculous sacfrices and somehow end up winning the game. lol