Can the average person become a chess master?

It's an interesting subject. People tend to think that if they work hard enough they can do anything. I on the other hand tend to disagree with that: especialy with chess. We are not all meant to do everything or anything we want at the highest level.

In my chess experience, I have met a few GM's. They tend to be very special people with special abilities that your average person simply does not have.

I played in a simul with GM Pavel Blatney. He beat about 20 of us and drew a couple guys. At the end of the simul, he remembered every move of every game.

At the last chess club I was a member of, GM Timur Gareyve would visit regularly. He now has the world record of blindfold simultaneous games having played I think 60 people at the same time. How is that even possible? Is it learned? To some degree yes, but there's also something very special happening upstairs in his mind.

Then there's Magnus who remembers every move of every game he's ever analyzed in a book.

Most GM's (If not all) possess some degree of this type of ability. I don't have it, but I'm okay with that. I still play and try to enjoy the game. In my opinion, most people are better off doing the same and not attempting to walk down the GM path. People should enjoy this game and if their abilities are there, the path to a title will be clear.

Bramblyspam, have you tried blindfold?

Nope. I have yet to meet a master with worse visualization ability than mine, and I'm pretty sure that by move ten, I'd be hanging pieces and making illegal moves. I do believe this is something that could be improved with practice, but I happen to lack that particular passion.

My ceiling is probably around 2200. I'm currently rated below that. I hope to get back to 2200, but I think it's unlikely that I'll reach 2300 and extremely unlikely that I'll ever get to 2400 - partly because I'm okay with being "only" a master. I know the work required to hit 2400, and one might say I lack the drive to do it. ;-)

I think to become IM or GM many of them have some special abillity. The IM's and GM's that i observed online from their youtube channels - it just jump out to me that those guys are not "normal".  Not only in chess terms, but in life too. Some people just succeed easier and with less work than others, or their put a lot of work for example they have read 50 books and remembered everything from each one but would seems impossible for average person no matter how hard they try.

I can 100% say that IM John is not normal guy. He is just too perfect. The way he talks (he never said f word in any of his 1100 videos and probably in real life too, i never knew this kind of person is possible), the way he looks (like a super model)  and if you have watched some of his bullet games (2700chescom) he explains everything as he plays..

Those guys are prodigies... And the youngest ones clearly have some talents too.. GM Erik played 5 blindfold blitz games while dancing simultaneusly with random board call only by nickname of the players. (Not board 1 then go board 2 etc)

If you take a look at their fide elo you will notice that those guys have never been like 1200 rated or 1400 rated.. Their first rating is like 1800-2000 and stays at that level only for like few months. before they hit master level same year or something.

In their eyes someone who is 1500 rated is like a total beginner and they dont understand how someone can be stuck at that level..

WIM Fiona 2200~ fide a lot of times said she don't know openings/endgames (she said with black against 1.e4 i am ok, but i don't know what to do against any other move by white)... i mean wow..

interesting point about him looking like a supermodel, average looking people never suceed at anything. why?

because no one is happy to see them because they're ugly so no one ever encourages them to develop skills, teachers ignore them because they don't look intelligent.

average people who do become good had annoying pushy parents when younger and are basically shut ins

"... On the one hand, your play needs to be purposeful much of the time; the ability to navigate through many different types of positions needs to be yours; your ability to calculate variations and find candidate moves needs to be present in at least an embryonic stage. On the other hand, it will be heart-warming and perhaps inspiring to realize that you do not need to give up blunders or misconceptions or a poor memory or sloppy calculating habits; that you do not need to know all the latest opening variations, or even know what they are called. You do not have to memorize hundreds of endgame positions or instantly recognize the proper procedure in a variety of pawn structures.

[To play at a master level consistently] is not an easy task, to be sure ..., but it is a possible one. ..." - NM Peter Kurzdorfer (2015)

Master level is perfectly within reach of most "average people" by most cognitive metrics. People don't have to be exceptional in any way. Do agree that it's very much a matter of drive. I'd go further and say one doesn't necessarily have to start very young.

As for IM or GM level requiring exceptional abilities... would love to see some evidence of that. It cannot be ruled out that there are temperaments that simply predispose people to certain types of activity, by virtue of which they naturally outperform the majority. Which doesn't automatically imply intellectual giftedness in the case of chess. Can't see why that should be a requirement to achieve GM level. Above average IQ, probably, but nowhere near exceptional.

Who is "IM John"?

"Can the average person become a GM?"

No.  That's like asking 'can the average person become a billionaire?'   The answer is No.  99.9% of average people don't have the drive, persistence, IQ, discipline, etc to become either. 

Mainly IQ since there's nothing else as well-documented and comprehensive.

Several studies on the relationship between IQ and chess achievement have been done. Plenty can be found with Google; plenty have been cited on the forum. Can't be bothered to dig it.

Different studies don't reach an actual consensus about whether high-level chess players are more cognitively well-endowed than the average. Some studies verify that to be the case with the tested sample size, while others do not. What can be concluded from these studies, and there's empirical evidence of that, is that people can be perfectly average and still achieve a high level of skill in chess. There's one study involving a few hundred chess players, which has been posted in some thread, where it was found that one or two masters had below average IQ. Not exactly sure if they were masters, maybe not, but I think they had a FIDE rating of 2200 or 2100 whereabouts if I remember correctly.

IQ is multifaceted. Proper IQ tests measure several types of cognitive abilities. Certainly not all cognitive abilities that are put into use in chess.

But despite your claimed IQ, the fact that they outperform you in those ways is not enough to infer that they were exceptional or even above average in any innate way. They had above average proficiency at the game. The cognitive correlations aren't simple to dissect. Much of what you're describing can be accounted for by memory and/or practice alone. Maybe they simply learned or worked harder than you. It's unreasonable to presume that someone with a significantly higher IQ is going to outperform everyone at everything. Doesn't work that way.

Not trying to diminish anything or anyone; just being rational.

every once in a while, there is a diamond in the rough just waiting to be discovered.

One of the things Malcolm Gladwell got right was the 10,000 hour rule. I hate googling this but I think it involved... I'll just link something that might describe it:

http://www.businessinsider.com/new-study-destroys-malcolm-gladwells-10000-rule-2014-7

I can offer reasons why older people have a hard time reaching the 10,000 rule, can anyone else guess why?

CUZ OLD PEOPLE DON'T HAVE TIME LIKE YOUNGINS. They also don't have the ability to absorb as much information and are also more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol which further impairs memory, <insert something about brain cells here>. Just follow deliberate practice rule and you should be fine. The more hours the better.

they also do have a lot of politics to discuss with their fellow olduns.

Only if you spend enough time doing it. You really have to care and want to dedicate yourself. 

All the time people are underestimating chess without realizing it.

You think you need intelligence to be an IM or GM? No way. But you do need a crap-ton of practice and playing.

ofc 

Forget GM, not everyone can even be a regular master, but it's not intelligence that holds people back. That's a silly misconception commonly found in non-players. Just saying.

Definition of intelligence: The ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.

So....you don't think a low level of intelligence would hold someone back from becoming a master?

I'm trying to determine if your claim is stupid or dumb. Stupid is when you know something is wrong but you do it anyway. Dumb, is when you just don't know any better.

For your sake, I hope it's the former.

There are plenty of ways to justify my post.

First of all, yes, a very low intelligence would bar a person from achieving many things... even dressing and feeding themselves. This is too obvious to need stating, and I'm not talking about these people.

65% of people have IQ between 85 and 115. What IQ is needed for FM or GM? I don't know, but Kasparov's IQ was tested at 135. Also young teens become GMs, preteens become FMs and even IMs. Even if their IQs were super rare, like 180, that would only mean they're as smart as a dumb adult. I'm sure you know, but I.Q. = mental age / actual age (x100).

IQ is not intelligence is not chess ability. I think maybe people associate vague ideas they don't understand well... like intelligence and talent for chess.