Can somebody explain this?

Why does Josh Waitzkin have so much more chess potential than other IMs at his level?

Well, no one can answer that until you show Waitzkin does have more potential than other IMs at his level.

Actually, I don't believe he does, but most the people on here seem to. Some even believe he could have easily reached 2700. I just figured I'd be open minded, and let them state their case in a scientific way.

Most players continue to get better at least up to ~30.  So if he was ~master level as a kid, then in 15 years it's not unreasonable to think that with hard work he would have been a GM.

2700 isn't predictable IMO.  And it's age, not IM status isn't what gives him potential.  He won some Jr championship tournament/s so arguably he had equivalent potential, maybe slightly more, as those kids.

His exact potential is obviously unknowable.

A lot of people, IMs included peak out before 30. Especially if they great training.

They don't gain 800 points in their 20s, like they may have in their teens, but I think they continue to improve.

He trained for years, after reaching IM, and improved only a little, until he peaked out. He had been training since the age of six under the best coaches, remember. He described his childhood in his Attacking Chess book, and it sounded practically ideal. Not the crappy treatment described in the movie, at all. Movies are never accurate. He probably had better training, growing up than most IMs, who admit they couldn't reach 2700. Yet many people on here, seem to think he had boat loads more potential than other IMs. Just wondering why.

Most IMs at his level don't have a well known film about them.

Most GMs above his level don't have a well known film about them.

Most world champions...etc

I agree, fully.

What exactly are we agreeing on?

We might not include you.

If you answered my question we would know for sure.

Read post number 11. If that doesn't explain it, nothing will.

Maybe the fact that He was considered a Child Prodigy, won the World Junior Championship and has a much better record that the other IM's at his level "foolishly" have led people to believe he has better potential; you know what they say: "If it looks like a duck and "guaks" like a duck; it must be a duck"!

as a child your interest vary,it could be he lacked the motivation or potential was there but not that extra something.there are many young people who have great talents--most don't pan out for many reasons.

Said post, as comprehensive and thoughtful as it was, does not clarify whether you agree that most IMs do not have films made about them - an obvious and trivial fact- or you agree with the implicit assertion that having a film made about you is a reflection on your potential.

Even if my post doesn't necessarily go as far as to mean that propaganda will blow his talent out of proportion, it's fairly clear that people wont talk about the wasted potential of somebody they have never heard of - he's not the only talented kid to fail to become GM.

Neither. Having a movie made about him, made him a celebrity, and people tend to illogically worship celebrities. Especially those who have a gift for gab. That's why believe he must be a chess god.