...Because I was at the store and I saw "Chess for Dummies" and "Idiot's Guide to Chess". But Until I figure out whether I'm a dummy or an idiot, I don't know which one to get.
Talk about being in-between a rock and a hard place. 
I once beat somebody who beat somebody who beat somebody who beat Judit Polgar. Now, if I can just cut out those pesky middlemen....
There seem to be a fair number of people who completely dismiss the reality that individuals can have varying abilities (at lots of activities, not just chess) and that results don't depend strictly on strength of desire or determination.
IMO, it is healthy to assume that people who take the time to create an account on chess.com and ask the question, "How does one become stronger in chess?" are on a path where they are willing to put the time and energy to better themselves in the game and to go above their current strengths. 
The least that I can do is encourage them by sharing a few pieces of chess trivia and personal experiences, no different from your generous information regarding chess ratings to a member in an earlier post.
I have to add the italics and smileys to keep this argument on friendly terms. I know how much you hate words in all caps. 
Especially if they're orange . . . orange words in all caps give me the cold willies . . .
Say-- has anyone ever had the hot willies? Or would that be indistinguishable from malaria?
There seem to be a fair number of people who completely dismiss the reality that individuals can have varying abilities (at lots of activities, not just chess) and that results don't depend strictly on strength of desire or determination.
Maybe this comes from some schools doing away with quantitative grading so stupid kids won't have to face up to the fact that they're stupid. Maybe a side effect is that average kids don't realize they're average, and they actually believe if they don't end up being best at something it's because they didn't try hard enough.
Though it IS true that hard work is required to reach high levels. It SHOULD be a matter of basic common sense that people have different abilities. People who say that anyone can accomplish anything just aren't too bright.
Im going to say my opinion from my expeirience,
my rating now became over 1450 ... but IMO anyone can get a fide rating over 2000 this is a formula of whats the largest rating you can have
=IQ x 10 + 1000
So, based on your experience as a 1450 rated player, you think anyone should be able to get to 2000. Frankly, I don't see why that should carry much weight.
If I believe your formula, then only people with an IQ over 100 should be able to get a rating of 2000. And that's only half the population, which is a lot less than "anyone". Of course, I also have no reason to believe your formula.
the formula isint from me its from here
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-players/iq-and-chess-the-real-relationship
The target wasn't to make it so 1/2 of all people have an IQ of 100 -- they tune it so that the average of all people's IQ is 100. While it could be the same thing, it would be very unlikely.
The formula relating IQ to chess is silly anyway, chess is only very very loosely related to intelligence, and IQ isn't a perfect representation of intelligence in the first place. I don't think anyone takes that formula seriously, and even the guy who thought it up said it was pretty speculative.
If the formula is applied the other way, starting with rating and back-calculating the corresponding IQ, I shouldn't even be able to dress or feed myself.
There seem to be a fair number of people who completely dismiss the reality that individuals can have varying abilities (at lots of activities, not just chess) and that results don't depend strictly on strength of desire or determination.
Maybe this comes from some schools doing away with quantitative grading so stupid kids won't have to face up to the fact that they're stupid. Maybe a side effect is that average kids don't realize they're average, and they actually believe if they don't end up being best at something it's because they didn't try hard enough.
Yeah I've seen that theory gain some currency in the US, with some guy who wrote a book supposedly making the case that anyone can do anything if they just practice enough. To me it's yet one more example of people taking an extreme stance on the nature vs nurture debate when obviously it's some of both. And saying it's a question of desire to succeed just begs the question because where does that desire come from to begin with? The ghost in the machine I suppose.
With what I've seen, IQ and chess skill do not correspond to one another.
Even in "Life Imitates Chess," Kasparov mentions that brilliant people are attracted to chess but are not necessarily good at it.
Depends on who the 1500 is. If he's a bright kid who got there in a few months, he stands a chance. If it's an adult who went nuts for some reason, then no.
I get a few messages daily asking about something funny and rating-related. This one made my day today:
i got to 1256 in a year do you think i could be a GM in another year please awnser
Don't forget that some people are stupid at trying hard. They just can't figure out how to try hard. So, do they fail because they're stupid, or didn't try hard enough.
I think that's the key. I, for one, know that I have a tough time figuring out why I fail -- am I stupid or lazy? I'm not sure.
And I know it's important to know what makes me so dumb. Because I was at the store and I saw "Chess for Dummies" and "Idiot's Guide to Chess". But Until I figure out whether I'm a dummy or an idiot, I don't know which one to get.