Really smart people have better things to do than spend all their time on chess.This proves that really great chess players are stupid. Bobby Fischer was the perfect example. And Zod is an imperfect example.
Therefore, yes, stupid people may and can play chess...often to excellence and beyond.
(I don't actually know what is "beyond" excellence but it has a nice ring to it.)
One of the old-time chess GMs said that he could take an average person and make them a master chess player in two years. I read this recently but have forgotten who said that. Seems to me it was Emanuel Lasker (but I could be mistaken).
Maybe someone can Google and find the quote. (I just did, couldn't locate it and am short on time at the moment.
This guy also thinks it can be done: http://canchess.tripod.com/reflecti.htm#refl2
My opinion? It seems to me somewhat specious. Can someone really take a sow's ear and make it into a silk purse? Well, of course, Professor Henry Higgins did just that in the play "My Fair Lady". (Of course that was a work of fiction...lol.)
I know smart people that are terrible chessplayers and people that didnt even finnish school that are good chessplayers. However I do belive chess is a mind game - forcing you to think - and in general, I think people with high scores in solving puzzels and pattern recognition are better equipped to be good at chess... all this applies to my modest level, I think, but to be a grand master or better... I am not so sure...
I think it all comes down to what the definition of smart is, and how you as an individual utilize your level of smartness.
But any individual? I think not.
Chessnuts are clearly smarter than the average bear. Just like Yogi.
A bit scatterbrained and eccentric too. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
D29i wrote:
how conveniently vague.
to be "good". what does this mean? FM IM GM?
certainly simply getting a 2000-2500 internet bullet/blitz no increment rating isn't the definition of "good". too easy.
I guess we could just sit here and label people we don't like as "mediocre" and people we do as "good" regardless of anything and without specifically defining these terms.
I can see your one of those people that has to argue about something and take an aggressive opposing stance on things. I'd consider good to be around club level. Your not horrible, you have a good logical understanding of the game, tactical vision, solid fundamentals. Not master strength but better than the average chess player. You know, generally when someone is better than average we consider them "good" at something. No?
Obviously when someone has reach master strength they arent "good" chess players anymore theyre masters. Amazing how that title fits.
Although I haven't found the exact reference that I mentioned above (2 years to become a master), I did find this reference where Lasker says in 200 hours he could take someone who knows nothing of chess to the level of a master player: http://chessimprover.com/emanuel-lasker-on-chess-improvement/
I can't argue with someone who was the best chess player in the world for 27 years. But I wonder if he ever knew some of the people that I know (or have known). 
Note: If a beginner played and studied 10 hours per day, could they get to the level of chess master in 20 days (200 hours)?!
Well, from your snarky tone, shouting and implication, I suspect that I ought to be offended.
But I am not. Why? Because I just reported what one of the best (some claim the best) chess players said. My post was to convey such. Why you would think I ever believed that it was a fact is beyond my comprehension.
But you are French. So I'm giving you a pass from my wrath. I like the French (well, not all). Have a glass of grape water on me:
no, it is not a smart persons game, many idiots play chess. Certainly not a game dumb people excell at though
You calling me dumb! Watch it Pal! 
You need to be smart and inteligent to play chess
Although I haven't found the exact reference that I mentioned above (2 years to become a master), I did find this reference where Lasker says in 200 hours he could take someone who knows nothing of chess to the level of a master player: http://chessimprover.com/emanuel-lasker-on-chess-improvement/
I can't argue with someone who was the best chess player in the world for 27 years. But I wonder if he ever knew some of the people that I know (or have known).
Note: If a beginner played and studied 10 hours per day, could they get to the level of chess master in 20 days (200 hours)?!
Gotta love it when someone takes a quote of "200 hours" which was completely arbitrary and attempts to show the absurdity...
HE MADE IT UP! Do you really expect him to do a study of thousands of players to see the average time it takes to get "master"
You're just.. nevermind.
A few strong GMs reported that it took them 2 years to become ~2000 strength. One of them was Kasparov IIRC. Of course this was when they were something like 10 years old lol. I use that as a basic standard for fastest possible stuff. Two years from learning the moves to master should be extremely rare as these guys had both the ideal talent and environment to excel.
I think one look at the live chat and forums will you give you a swift answer...
No.
Beat me to it.
Although I haven't found the exact reference that I mentioned above (2 years to become a master), I did find this reference where Lasker says in 200 hours he could take someone who knows nothing of chess to the level of a master player: http://chessimprover.com/emanuel-lasker-on-chess-improvement/
I can't argue with someone who was the best chess player in the world for 27 years. But I wonder if he ever knew some of the people that I know (or have known).
Note: If a beginner played and studied 10 hours per day, could they get to the level of chess master in 20 days (200 hours)?!
Gotta love it when someone takes a quote of "200 hours" which was completely arbitrary and attempts to show the absurdity...
HE MADE IT UP! Do you really expect him to do a study of thousands of players to see the average time it takes to get "master"
You're just.. nevermind.
A few strong GMs reported that it took them 2 years to become ~2000 strength. One of them was Kasparov IIRC. Of course this was when they were something like 10 years old lol. I use that as a basic standard for fastest possible stuff. Two years from learning the moves to master should be extremely rare as these guys had both the ideal talent and environment to excel.
There have been people who have gotten to 2000+ in less than two years and they weren't trained by Botvinnik...
Chess strength has more to do with work and effort than innate ability.
I'm not trying to say there haven't, just saying why I'm assuming what I do. I'd be really interested in a name I could look up and set myself a more accurate benchmark for fastest possible stuff.
But it does get a little tricky... you can get to 2000 in 1 tournament. It doesn't mean you learned the moves the day before though 
No? Nakaumra is dumb as fuck and he plays chess god.
Actually, it may sound dumb, but it just occurred to me that maybe you can get to master faster if you start at a slightly older age. Sure starting at 7 is great for becoming a GM, but getting to master before you're 9 or 10 is probably really hard. But if you start at, IDK, 13 or something, maybe it's not as hard to make it before 15 (?)
Tracking turned off. Cult of the amateur is nauseating.
Good. Then the likes of you and all such morons who repeat the mindless mantra of "tracking turned off" won't suffer the pain of hearing that no one gives a rat one way or the other.
....
Or can any individual become successful in chess?
Likely, if they start early enough (age 3 or 4 say) and spend enough time on it. If you're an adult however and the brainpower is not there, it will be tough going.
Another way of saying this is that talent and even intelligence in an area can be developed. However, after a certain age, it becomes much harder to do so.