Hard Work Alone Can Never Make You a Master

A quick Google search shows that there have been a number of scientific studies on this topic, and the studies I glanced at did not support the idea of an innate "chess talent."

Edit: They didn't find intelligence to be an overly significant determinant of chess potential.

It's not chess talent. It's a bunch of other innate factors that translate into chess talent.

Not to diminish hard work. But honestly, nobody knows the exact answer to the question, and as someone has stated, it's a pretty bad question anyways.

You forget some numbers behind the point...

You also love being a forum-troll? ;D

Of course innate chess talent exist, there are lot of examples: Paul morphy, reshevsky, carlsen, karjakin, fischer .. Come on how you can say that chess talent does not exist. What kind of studies are that?

there Is chess talent, but its only needed when you want to become one of the best. You can easiliy become a good player without talent.

Agreed on the self confidence part.

Your "best win" in your ratings stats show only wins over 1700+ max.

Becoming a master in otb chess is a different thing.

I have a 2300 FIDE rated friend. With blitz (on another server) my score against him is something like +99 -34 =15

Will that give me any chances for a title ?

No.

Will that indicate that I could win a few otb blitz tourneys ?

Yes.

Speaking about myself :

Getting a master title with otb chess (Not talking about correspondence chess master titles) is going to be difficult for me.

* I have last tourney round pressure issues (Last year I could have had 1st price in otb tourney, but lost in the last round, against a lower rated player).

* I have low attention span issues, and a classic otb game can be tiring (and an open weekend tourney can be very very tiring).

* I get easily distracted by noise and other things during otb chess.

Conclusion :

* Chess results online cannot always be compared with results otb.

* Getting a master title can involve a lot more than talent and studying.

Those exceptional players weren't part of the studies. They were studying more typical players to determine if there was a relationship between intelligence and chess ability, and they found that experience was by far the most important factor. Of course there is chess talent, but I don't believe that it is as important as the OP claims.

I think someone may have tried to say this, but it was not clear.

There is no such thing as innate 'chess' talent. In fact, there is no such thing as innate talent at all.

What there are are innate extra-abilities that can translate very well to certain activities.

For example; If you have an innate extra-ability to visualize real or abstract structures, you might be better at chess, music or programming.

If you have an innate extra-ability to control your body you might be better at sports.

And it takes more than 1 of these extra-abilities to create a 'talent'.

Personally, I would say that if you have the right combination of these, then, yes, you do have a chess 'talent'.

All that aside though. I do agree that you don't need talent to become a master at anything. Hard work will get most people there.

Talent is what makes the ones who work hard move beyond master.

I agree with you, that players must have an "affinity" for chess. But I think the majority of people who are consistent players on chess.com (and rated at least 1200+), and practically all tournament players have that affinity. Those without it just give up chess because they aren't any good and aren't able to improve.

So I guess it's true that on some level you need an innate "talent" or "affinity" for the game... but in my opinion the majority of chess players have that affinity, and just don't put in the work.

I suppose you've probably more knowledgable on the subject, since you have clearly been playing longer than me. But I just thought I'd put in my $0.02

Because of the economic downslide, your $0.02 worth is only worth $0.013897 on todays market.

so true

I thought all money is debt? At least nowadays anyway

Wow, really? That sucks, that $0.02 was my entire life savings.

"Hard work" is overrated in general.

"Enjoying life" is underrated in general.

You can choose : "Work hard" and crave for "success" till your last breath, or find inner peace and enjoy life or try to combine both.

There's people who probably never will get over a 1000 rating limit.

I did a training game here with takebacks, and my opponent kept blundering full queens and rooks even after takebacks.

Perhaps this person could get better at chess with a lot of training, but for some it might be good to find enjoyment with other hobbies instead.

Unless they really enjoy their chess playing of course.

I believe that with hard work, dedication, anyone can become a master and expert. At least that is my goal.

Well, it looks like you are going well 

I've read every post on this blog and must admit that I find myself back on the negative side of this subject. I just don't make the progress that I wished for when I started playing almost daily, now nine months ago. I'm so frustrated! But I refuse to quit this hobby just because of that. I don't expect to get get a master title, but I do believe that once my whole life would be a bit more harmonious, my spirit a bit more at piece, my chess game will follow that positive line.