Does fate (or destiny) play significant role in the success of Carlsen?

Ok, everybody knows about how perfect Carlsen is for the moment. He seems stand on top of the world now. He is undisputable world champion (in three different time controls), and he reached (so far) the highest rating in history. And most importantly, he claimed all of those in his youth.

Let's admit that we have seen so many people with great natural talents and hard work ethics, but still cant reach success as perfect as Carlsen (in chess world or in another field). We have seen so many chess players start to play from a very early age, and they train hard with various method. Some of them reach GM status, but so what? After cross the 2500 rating barrier, they seem stuck and cant claim higher success. And other group of these people who also start from early age and train hard, only be able to claim IM title or lower, and the world champion title seems something impossible to be imagined. But for Carlsen, everything seem go smoothly in favour of him :D

I am not a chess player and am only play chess for fun but i read chess news pretty often (cause i like the opportunity that female can compete equally on this game to male :P). So I know that many young chess talents out there with hard work attitude, but they seem struggle in their career. For instance, GM Peter Leko (yes he is not so young now, but he was a prodigy) had started chess from an early age and i am sure he was train so hard, but during the world champion match in 2004, although he drew the titleholder at that time (kramnik), the title went to kramnik and Leko seem already passed his peak performance now. But again, everything has been so perfect and smooth for Carlsen.

So my question is, do you believe that apart from proper traning in early age and even natural talent or hard work, fate or destiny plays significant role in chess (and other field). I admit that Carlsen has extra ordinary talent (and maybe he is a hard worker too), but maybe he can claim perfect success cause he already destined to be a world champion and perfect player (for certain period). Thus, for some unknown reason, maybe he received all of that success as a gift and not because of his pure effort or talent. What do you think?

I dont belive in fate or destiny, but I belive in luck. If chess is 30% talent and 60% training you still need the last 10% of luck to reach the top.

Ya, but that would rise another question, why this luck factor choose to come to a specific chess player, rather than another one? :P And Carlsen seems receive his luck consistently.

I dont remember who said it but "Strangly, the more I praktise the luckier I get". 

nope, he throw darts :)

do you have any better sugestions for how the platypus came to be 

Love of the game + talent + hard work + an adequate environment for development (teachers, living conditions, ect.) = success. There is no fate or destiny - or even luck in chess, just the mistakes of your opponent. This is why computers destroy humans at chess.

for ratings below 2000 its mostly training (or ontrained talent) for ratings over 2000 its just talent. 

"do you believe that apart from proper traning in early age and even natural talent or hard work, fate or destiny plays significant role in chess"

Depends on what is meant with fate or destiny and in what aspects of chess, but in general I think "luck" often has been a quite important component for chess players. Janowski had a wealthy backer and got a title match while Rubinstein was much stronger but didn't have such a backer. Euwe was not as strong as Capa, who he lost a match against, and was partly because of this given a title match by Alekhine.

Shirov won the Candidates against Kramnik but the latter was given a title match. When Kasparov and Anand declined the next cycle Leko got a title match, when Carlsen declined the Candidates 2011 it was won by Gelfand. It has been a mix of playing strength, luck, and taking your chances. Spassky might have won against Fischer if he had insisted on following the rules, while Carlsen might have missed out on his title match if Ivanchuk had a bad day in the last round of the Candidates 2013.

Seems quite odd that you would not believe in fate or destiny, but would believe in luck. In all cases, a mysterious 3rd party plays a part.

        Fate and destiny, in the sense meant here, do not exist. To believe that something was always going to happen because of the effect of some mystical influence is absurd. Furthermore, luck does not exist either, just coincidence.

Heheha...at top level luck doesn't matter. It works only in lower rated player.

Its all about sheer calculation & preparation at top level.

Destiny and fate are just nebulous terms used to describe the evolution of a momentous event which was, with hindsight, simply the logical result of a series of preceding events.

YEah, suggesting things lik fate and destiny to a bunch of chess players is not the best idea.

Unless it is your fate to have it picked apart.

I think it is more a question of unique talent, training and study.

Chess players are often rather superstitious:

Kasparov: "I have always felt that some people are fated to become world champions and some people are not, such as Bronstein, Larsen and Korchnoi. If you are destined to, then that's destiny too"

I guess it boils down to if you believe destiny is externally controlled by some unidentified force or if you believe destiny is achieved by a feeling of entitlement.

For example, someone who met their 'soulmate' may call it destiny. This would be an example of believing in some external force influencing things.

However, if someone works hard to obtain a goal and achieve it, they feel entitled to the success and call it destiny.

The U.S. used Manifest Destiny as the reason for displacing millions of Native Americans. This, of course, is based on the entitlement definition of destiny.

I dont think its to weird. Fate and destiny are predesided events bound to happen in which you have little or no control. Fate dont help you in any way, but can actualy be harmfull. If I was destined to be a chess champ, I would not have to praktice much, sice I was going to become one anyway-

Luck on the other hand is compleatly random and strikes at chance. Meaning that I would have to train everyday to be able to see my lucky break.