Can Anyone Become Grandmaster?

Anded it was a nice try but i went to troll university

More babble. I mereley said that the probability of you being exceptional at chess is very low, which is an indisputable fact. Comparing chess ability to winning the lottery is, quite frankly, a slight to logic itself. You're either severely delusional or a troll of the highest order.

i think the rule is whoever says troll first is the troll.

besides it isnt even an undisputable fact.

if you were trained in the jempty method, that's not internationally recognised due to the propensity to become self-obsessed, hijack threads ineffectively and habitually go off-topic.

bobby fisher who many consider the best of the best believed it was possible to c0me to the point where you could always choose the very best move. if that is so you would never lose with white and at the worst draw with black. he never reached that level and most of us will never be a GM.

Right, without sounding arrogant I don't believe you have the intelligence to continue this conversation.

Cognitive psychologists are struggling to answer that question. I doubt that the question will definitively be answered in a chess forum. (Although that doesn't keep us from trying, right?)

http://people.brunel.ac.uk/~hsstffg/FG-pdfs/Campitelli-CDPS-2011.pdf

Well i read somewhere that if you have an IQ of 100 or normal with training you could reach an elo of 2000 propably not true, but i think that anyone who isnt severely retarded can if really putting same effort as all the top players in the world reach an elo of 2200 and be qualified as grandmaster. When you think about it top players use countless hours doing nothing but chess say you work 8h a day and after a weak u are pretty good at what ever it is you do i think this applyes to chess as well but who if not allready talented or good wants to spent 10-12 h a day studying chess if only getting an elo of 2200-2300 and not getting it higher ? I myself doesnt have an elo rating but have played with club players of 2000+ and all say ur elo is propably somewhere around 2000-2300 and propably if u were to train and but some thought in to it that i could be pro. I dont think i could be on top 500 even and thats why i dont really study or try my all. But to answer the question i think 90 % of people could reach gm elo but if all people were to do this then it would propably raise pretty quickly and not all people have what it takes to study something they may not even like so overall everybody whos interested in chess has te ability and potential for gm but it takess too much and would propably require good coach etc.

There is a certain theme engrained in much motivational BS that anybody can do anything if they put their mind to it. So we grow up thinking that we if haven't attained certain goals that it is our fault, we've lacked discipline, focus, we are failures.

It would be better to be honest and realise that we all have different strengths and leave the myth that we all be nuclear physicists/musicians/presidents/olympic sporstman/GMs or whatever for what it is - fantasy. A fantasy that will ultimately result in many people feeling inadequate and depressed.

According to the March 2013 FIDE rating list (http://ratings.fide.com/download/standard_mar13frl_xml.zip), there are 924 standard chess players rated at at least 2500 registered in FIDE, this number being ~0.59 % of all 156 254 players registered.

If I'm not mistaken, save for becoming a GM by winning a world championship or on other similarly rare occasion, one needs to have 2500+ ELO to become one. It may be true that ELO ratings are getting inflated, but I believe it's more likely that FIDE increase their GM rating requirements if everyone starts to get 2500+ rather than call everyone a GM. After all ELO is relative, and if you add any number to all players' rating their scoring percentages won't change.

I don't know what would USCF, national federations, etc. think about this matter, but I bet the situation wouldn't be much more different.

This doesn't mean one should quit playing chess because of not being granted the GM title though.

i'll bet Popeye could be a grandmaster given enough spinach.

Name one.

Funniest thing I've heard today.

"there's prodigies potentially better than some GM's but haven't yet reached master level" ... think i got it and although i can't name any, i bet the normal distribution will concur.

The unborn chess master of the future

The message he tried to convey was poorly explained. I took it to mean relative skill, at this very moment.

I'd say that's a pointless statement. As far as anyone's concerned I could be the next Isaac Newton, but alas, I'm hardly going to dedicate my life to furthering mathematics... I guess we'll never know.

True.One should always play to improve but GM's have improved to such an extent that it is not just mere reognition but a much deserved title!He is as good as his position in the board,True.So is anybody.The difference is that GM's just convert the position much better.

mere recognitions? Like olympic medals? Doesn't mean Usain Bolt can beat me?

Know your talents people, we haven't all got the potential to play as GMs.

It would be foolish not to fear a GM, we would all have zero chance of beating one. If a player was rated 2000+ then yes, he'd likely lose but with a strong knowledge in chess theory there's always a small chance of victory. It's like me fighting one of the Klitschko brothers, either I'd fear them, or be fearless in defeat. Either way, I would lose.