Hard Work Alone Can Never Make You a Master

Chess is not called the Royal game for nothing. Obviously you need time, money to spend on books, coach, travel etc... Plus the effort every step of the way. Being the Royal game it is not for everyone. It's like not everyone can dine at Waldorf Astoria. Hardwork or not is irrelevant.

What is chess talent, exactly? Are some born knowing how to play the Phildor position?

Hard work needs to be based on working on the right things and using the right training methods.  I guess many people work hard while doing the wrong type of work.

If analysis of my games shows that poor calculation is the main source of my losses then I could work hard 8 hours a day on openings and endgames and still see little improvement in my results.  I'd be focusing on the wrong areas.

Even after identifying the right areas for work, using the correct approach is vital.  I could read 10 books on calculation and still not improve if I'm never actually training my ability with appropriate exercises.

Hard work isn't about how long you spend with a chess book in your hand.  Are you actually working your brain?  And does this work target your main weaknesses?

Lastly, I believe working with a good chess coach makes a big difference.  They can help identify your real weaknesses and suggest appropriate training methods.

How about hard work and a gun?

I've known very intelligent people, MAs, Ph.D's and others, who spent 40 hours a week on chess without breaking the 2000 ratings barrier. Chess is far more difficult than most are willing to admit. 

Then we look at child prodigies like Reshevsky. Only took him a few years to get the grasp of it. By that time he was 4

I guess the appropriate question would be how does one become a master?

it was fun. play, study, play, try new things, review them after the game, on your own with your opponent, then check them with an engine in addition to other ideas considered during the game and ideas the engine can provide you plus other plausible ideas that pop into your head (chess related) see what better players do in similar positions.  if you are able to accept new information (some people are not)  i think anyone can make master.  i liked to study tal games when i started chess and games from game collections, just for the tactics.  somehow i excel at kingside attacks, it's a mystery to me.    everybody has their own way but i suggest playing main lines with your own individual flavor.  plus studying annotated games in your repertoire is good.  although it's important to learn to play many positions, it's more important to play to learn to play each well.

NM Petrosianic , Thank you! Like you said, anyone can make master. I may add that anyone of average intelligence can make it to the master level provided they do their homework.

Of course it's easier to play chess as a game and accept being an amateur - and there's nothing wrong with that. It's even easier to quit playing the game - and there's nothing wrong with that either.

And a good transmission alone, doesn't make a good truck. 

You also need an engine. A frame. A driveshaft. Wheels. A frame helps....

And cup holders.

They spend around 6 hrs a day and can't break 2000? what age do you think these people starting playing chess.

... and let's not talk about the idiot at the controls.

rtr1129 wrote:

What is chess talent, exactly? Are some born knowing how to play the Phildor position?

People with a talent for chess learn new things such as openings and end game techniques in less time, are able to convert positional and tactical knowledge into skill faster, have a better board vision from earlier on, and are more often (at least initially) experiencing positive feedback which makes them even more motivated to keep on improving. People without talent take (sometimes much) longer to learn the same things, have to do more effort to retain what they learned, and are more often confronted with negative feedback in the form of failure or stagnation.

That said, I agree with other posters that inefficient use of time or using poor study techniques should not be confused with a lack of talent.

Some of these people have been adult learners, some were taught chess in Soviet schools, and some have been playing chess all their lives. I wonder how many people who post here have been to a large tournament. There are hundreds of people competing for class prizes. They work their tails off to win a class prize. Not a master's title, a class prize. 

So, all of these people are below average intellect and have had poor training? No. Some of them don't devote countless hours to chess, but most tournament players do. 

I'm not the one calling these people failures or below-average intellects. As I said, there are many very intelligent players who never broke 2000 rating despite devoting countless hours to the game.

Yes, there are some really gifted players out there who make it look easy. But no, not everyone can make master, or even expert.

@ SmyslovFan, You're absolutely right. And one of my real-life friends is such a guy. Already in his late 50s, rather intelligent, he had played in tournaments for 30 years. He had even beaten experts, and even masters, occasionaly but never broke through the 2000 barrier himself. He studied and played extensively.

However, his problem was that he didn't have the correct way of studying. He never had a coach (and he never used computers and the Internet either) and only had books and magazines to study from. And while books are great, they don't answer many questions that a person might have. So he was never able to establish a concrete foundation and a solid understanding of the game. As a result, he stagnated in 1900s and retired from tournament play. And when I showed him the resources here on chess.com and on YouTube, he sighed and told me that if he had this type of instructional resources back in his day, he would definitely have become a master. Of course back in his day he would have to hire a coach and that was something he could not afford.

So you may study but if you don't do it correctly, you are likely to achieve some results but not a whole lot. These days there are a lot of resources (a lot of them are free or cost little) to learn from.

But Vahan...

Your friend could have just become addicted to internet blitz and never study seriously again.

I know someone (FM) (beat the world champion at the time)  said "talent can only do so much too help you, the rest is up to you."

so what you guys are saying about only talent can get you to the top, you are not masters he is almost IM!

Just putting that out there! :)

I agree with everything that's been said.