Hard Work Alone Can Never Make You a Master

I agree in part of what you are saying

Talent dies by the side of the road.

Hard work wins the prize.

To become a master it is necessary to fall in love with the process of becoming a master.

Hard work beats talent when talent fails to work hard!

What are the Protocols? I missed that one. Love a good mystery

Since when do things need two purposes ? (stolen from here)

The only other requirement is money. You need money to buy books, lessons, subscribe to certain websites, and join tournaments.

You haven't met many masters, have you? There are some masters who come from wealthy families or have made a good living, but most that I know are not very wealthy. In fact, most are relatively poor.

don't they get book deals and commercial endorsements?

No, ab, they don't. Only a few actually write books, and even fewer get commercial endorsements. 

The most common way to make a living as a chess player is to teach chess.

In Jazz, there is a similar concept:  To make it brief, Miles Davis once said that (I quote, but am paraphrasing) "hard work will always beat talent", with the understanding that talent is necessary to become "great".  "Great" means "head and shoulders above the rest"...I hate to rely on idioms, but there it is.

I am new to Chess, and even though Chess and Jazz are both difficult and compelling, the first thing I noticed is that in Jazz, you don't really have an opponent.  You are "competing", to a certain degree, but at the end of the day, it's not the same type of competition as Chess.  This competition in Chess necessarily makes all situations fundamentally different EVERY TIME you encounter them, whereas in Jazz improvisation you are free to handle each situation any which way you want; when these ways become sufficiently different and familiar, they call it your "style".

But Chess aggressively challenges you each time you look at an arrangement of pieces, and THAT perhaps is why (I think this is the gist of the poster) it could be said that raw talent is more necessary here if you wish to become a shining light in the chess world.  In Jazz improvisation, there are many possibilities, but a great number of them - once you understand the fundamentals of theory, harmony and your instrument - are perfectly good choices.  Chess is more demanding in this respect.  I can tell you right now that I do not think like a chess player.  The concept of strict rules and forcing your opponent into submission is so foreign to me that playing chess has become a revelation.  It's impossible to use "brute force" like a computer and think exponentially, so experience and talent must involve being able to "short list" available moves, and be a good judge of your opponent.

One quick anecdote to close:  Kierkegaard was a genius, who had a strange, tortured life.  When he was a child, in Latin school, his father had already recognized his potential, and so instructed him to bring home the THIRD best grade in the class.  His rationale was that it would be easy for his son to bring home the best grade, but to bring home the third best grade Kierkegaard would have to employ psychology, to figure out who the second and fourth best boys were, and place his work between theirs.

The chess discussed here is well beyond me - I use this game to teach myself how to think - but REAL chess must be something like Kierkegaard's experience...something like that.  Each step in chess unlocks (and locks) far more possiblities than in any sort of ordinary experience - even Jazz improvisation.  In Jazz, one surmounts the challenge of these beautiful possibilities with endless practice, patience, joy, and the humility to know yourself, your own abilities and talent.  I guess chess is like that too.

yeah i was being sarcastic; i don't know how anyone can become a master without either accepting poverty or having money already

Mousebelt- very interesting post; thanks! 

Well it suck's actually when you know that hardwork, dedication and determination will almost get you anything you want in life. I guess some things are a mystery.

ana hard mastur alone kin niver make ya werk

Taken from a chess.com article by Bill Wall

"Oldest master.  Oscar Shapiro (1910-2000) became a chess master at the age of 74. In 1991, Bernard Friend became a chess master for the first time at the age of 71. Gyorgy Negyesy (1893-1992) was a Hungarian master who died just short of his 99th birthday.  He was the longest-lived master. "

These guys lived to see their dreams come true!

Oscar Shapiro was born in Boston, Massachusetts on March 18, 1909.  In 1939, he won the Massachusetts State Championship.  He won the Washington, D.C. Championship several times.  In 1951, he won the Virginia Open Chess Tournament.  He became a USCF master at the age of 74.  He died on January 1, 2002 at the age of 92.

Source: Chesopedia

Shapiro was already good long time ago before becoming a master.

Chess talent is largely a matter of intelligence. And intelligence is largely a matter of genetics. Variations in intelligence are 70% genetic. If neither of your parents are geniuses, then you are unlikely to become a genius.

"And you posted this to discourage anyone from putting the work in to become the best they can be? Even if what you state is true, what harm is there in putting in the work to become the best player you can be? And what good can come from raining on their parade?"

It means that trying to make a living as an expert accountant is a better investment than trying to make a living as an expert chess player. You know what really rains on parades? Poverty.

I don't think we were having a parade...