i'm too stupid to learn chess?

Look, no one, EVER, is too dumb to play chess

sorry but...yeah they are...but not this op.

I'm more interested in the person who swears on their life that they can't get to 1500 blitz.

Well, Kafka's great swimmer did:

“Honored guests! I have, admittedly, broken a world record. If, however, you were to ask me how I have achieved this, I could not answer adequately. Actually, I cannot even swim. I have always wanted to learn, but have never had the opportunity. How then did it come to be that I was sent by my country to the Olympic Games? This is, of course, also the question I ask of myself. I must first explain that I am not now in my fatherland and, in spite of considerable effort, cannot understand a word of what has been spoken. Your first thought might be that there has been some mistake, but there has been no mistake—I have broken the record, have returned to my country, and do indeed bear the name by which you know me. [...]"

Now why didn't I think of that? All I have to do is *genuinely* believe that I can do it. My problem is that the thousands of hours I've logged since I was 7 years old resulted in mediocrity because I didn't *genuinely* believe I could do it. Thank you!!!

#2
"The only way I managed this is by knowing that he played the g5 main line and memorizing every possible response I could think of and setting a couple of traps."
"The only way I *ever* won games was by out-preparing my opponents because they would always thrash me if I got out of prep and got into some closed positional struggle with too many pieces on the board to keep track of."
That explains it all.

I do find it rather amusing that I'm trying to convince people with a precisely constructed set of arguments that I don't have the mental wherewithal to achieve a ratings goal. It's kinda funny when you think about it.

Yes it does. It explains it by demonstrating to you that my memorization skills are excellent and that my calculation/visualization skills are pants. And if you tell me that I need to work on my calculation skills by doing puzzles or whatever, I swear I'll scream.

It matters what u study and how u study.  It's very possible to spend years training and learning the wrong stuff.  Maybe some chess players just study openings thinking it'll make them "good".  I've known many people who think their college degrees somehow make them intelligent.  But if u spend 20 years learning that the world's flat and u have a piece of paper to prove that u sat in a room with like minded students, does that mean u b well edumakated? No.

It's possible to have players with the same natural abilities study and train the same amount of time and achieve different results. 

My advice is to start with the lessons. That's what I did as a complete beginner and now I barely lose a game. Been playing for about 3 months.

Not only is it possible, I'd say it's the most common.

The learning curve for chess is long, and it's a process that requires a lot of persistent effort.

The hard part is, we all have gaps in our knowledge that we aren't aware of - and we use this knowledge to guide our decision-making at the board.

It usually takes a stronger, more experienced player to identify these knowledge gaps, and to offer instruction to help fill them (or correct them). It's usually not a process that a player can fully do alone - not even with the help of an engine.

So many players, these days, rely on engines to help them improve.

But engines are like calculators. They'll tell you the answer to a math problem - but they won't help you learn how to find the answer on your own.

This is why, for anyone hoping to seriously improve, I recommend working one-on-one with a stronger player - someone who is eager to help and teach.

A titled master would, of course, be ideal. But even an untitled player - if stronger, more experienced, and encouraging - can help tremendously.

Ugh... why can't people just understand that calculation and visualizing combinations is just inherently hard for some people to do but they are perfectly willing to accept that drawing a portrait like Raphael isn't something that everyone can do? Both are almost entirely mental processes. Both can be improved. But the fact is that some people take to drawing right away and can do amazing work quickly while others struggle with stick figures. Why do people insist that chess is different? I don't get it.

     When a group of cognitive scientists gave an array of mental and physical tests to the French Olympiad team (circa 1930) that included both world champion Alexander Alekhine and world-renowned artist Marcel Duchamp the only areas in which all the players scored well into the top 1% were visualization and visual memory. There may be ways to improve your use of these abilities somewhat, but the limits of your chess achievements are probably inherent.

     This has nothing to do with intelligence. Those at the extreme low end of the IQ range are highly unlikely to do any mental exercise proficiently, but high IQ doesn't mean high chess ability. I played for a number of years at the Berkeley, CA chess club and saw professors with world-class intellects play for years and never rise above the B class (1600-1800). No person in even the average range of intelligence is "too stupid" to learn chess, some of us (myself included) are lacking in other chess-essential talents.

     You can still enjoy playing chess even if you never reach titled strength. Most of us do, even if we are sometimes frustrated by our stupid mistakes.

You see, that is exactly your “problem.” You need to adopt the Professor Harold Hill “Think Method.” It worked wonders for Winthrop.

I was wrong all along! Anyone can be a GM. Anyone can be world champion! All you need is the right attitude, a little elbow grease, and some moxie!

I've been at this for years and I can't get to 800 blitz.   I've stopped playing blitz now, on the suggestion / insistence of stronger players, and I'm probably about to stop playing altogether because despite spending all my time trying to improve (5-8 hours a day, every day, for about a year now, and less time daily before that), it just doesn't happen for me, ever,  and smashing my head against the wall that is this game is wrecking my life and mental health.

Some people definitely do not have what it takes to improve.   I am one.  It took me a long time and a lot of work over time to discover that.  I'm pretty sure it's a brain/vision thing.   It seems to be pretty rare though, as almost no one seems to be able to relate to my experience and will even get annoyed with me / verbally abuse me for talking about it.  

So, statistically speaking OP is probably not "chess deficient" like me.   But if it's not doing good things for you, just forget it completely go outside and garden or something instead.   Sunlight is healthy, and all....  there are so many other hobbies you can have.  It's not shameful for a square peg to stop trying to cram itself into a round hole.

Fortunately popular wisdom is wrong about chess being a skill that correlates with general intelligence in any way, so don't think you're "stupid" if this is you.   (Among a subsample of outstanding young players, chess ability was slightly /negatively/ correlated with intelligence measures!   The researchers in that study think it is because the smarter kids in the sample don't work as hard at chess, however, and not due to some direct causal relationship....)

I'm certain this wasn't true when you were rated 900 or so.   You weren't studying openings / theory then.   You were learning tactics, they started making sense to you, and sticking in your head, you got better at finding them, you developed an ability to remember / make sense of positions, were able to learn mental processes to follow to select good moves, improved those processes / made them quicker and more reliable, learned to stop blundering....  and *then* you learned the theory.    No?

All of that beginner-phase stuff?   Not possible for some.   It comes so easily and effortlessly for most that they will get annoyed with me for saying so.   "THAT'S NOT TRUE, IT'S EASY JUST KEEP WORKING, HERE ARE MY FAVORITE YOUTUBE VIDEOS THAT GOT ME TO 1400 EFFORTLESSLY" they will say, angrily.  

No, it wasn't the book.  It was because they had an average or above-average or maybe even slightly-below-average inherent ability to learn chess, and they have an attribution bias.

"You can do accomplish anything if you work hard enough" is one of the most insidious and dangerous lies we tell children.

Generally,

1) They're just a player and have the "chess ability == intelligence" crap myth deeply embedded, and are internally reacting / defending against the fear that they don't stack up (because seeing someone struggling insurmountably reminds them of when they were struggling but learning - and this last thing is ongoing, forever)

or

2) They're also in the chess industry and trying to sell you something.

These two groups synergize and say the same things over and over again.   Only 1) will come at you with verbal abuse though.

I think it's inherently hard for everyone - some people cannot get better at it though.   My pet theory from my very small sample is that these are usually people who are wordy / verbal thinkers with total aphantasia and visual deficits    The two other people I know who also empathize with me both check all three of those boxes in various ways, also.    From what you said and reading your posts, you may, as well!   (In my case:  I'm almost legally blind and one of my eyes cannot assemble the shapes of letters into meaningful words - can see clearly but not read with one eye closed!  Also no depth perception, and permanent double-vision).

Although you've sadly closed your account, so we can't chat about it further.  Boo. 

Nice streak chain-wrecking those bots before you did though!   Can definitely not hope to do that, myself

In the study I'm talking about (Bilalić et all 2007), among the top chess-performing children, the ones who measured higher on general intelligence testing performed /lower/ in chess.

This may be because the smarter kids worked less hard, but definitely disproves the "intelligence is a multiplier for study time" thing.

Chess skill is somehow /different/ from the cluster of things we think of as general intelligence.

 
I never said it was, and it's not.   Give it a read, maybe, first, if you feel the need to criticize it?

(among the general population, there were no correlations; among the "elite young" cohort, there was a negative correlation).