Road to Grandmaster

 However, it is possible (even if unlikekly) for *all* candidates to pass this step: the student is not competing against his/her fellow students but against the panel. To gain a norm you need a certain score against a sufficiently highly-rated collection of opponents. This means there is a maximum number of norms acheivable at any given tournament ... you are competing against your fellow GM-aspirants AND the draw for those few, valuable norms. I believe it's possible for you to have the same score as another player but for him/her to get a norm and you not to, based on the strength of your opponents.

Additionally there are not a huge number of tournaments which attract strong enough players to offer norms ...

Yes, you need time and a little money to become GM, but thats the price you have to pay, and thats what i mean when i say "work hard and want it".

Im not saying it is easy to become GM, im just saying that if one will play and study chess full time (i dont know, 10 hours a day?), i dont think you need much unlearnable talent, to become a GM.

Here is a chess.com thread that recently debated the concept of chess talent to achieve a chess title:

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/what-did-it-take-for-you-to-get-your-title

 I think NM Reb's comments on this thread are spot on

Interesting project, good luck with that.

Enjoyed the website.

My friend, even if you study chess 10 hours a day, by yourself you will not advance much. Chess is not a language that you can simply learn and apply. There are a lot of positions, especially in the endgame that you won't know how to play, no matter who you are, even a Capablanca. You need a coach who could show you how to play these.  

@JetSetter

"Have you gotten an IM+ strength coach yet? If you have any hope of making it, you'll sign off of chess.com and every other message board and start living at the local chess club. GM is accomplished through OTB, not through dithering around on your computer."

I've got a coach who's an IM. Consequently I have no delusions of ever making it to that level :-)

 I don't think Economies of Scale means what you think it means.

Maybe you mean the economic reward?

The Polgar sisters was'nt an exsample of when to learn chess, but an exsample of talent vs hard work.

Are you saying that GM's have only learned OTB and havent used computers? What a joke.

You are absolutely right. I meant Economic Reward.

In any case, you were able to infer my intended invitation for discussion.

chessroboto wrote:

I don't think so. A thesis defense is merely like playing a panel of Titled players in an opening of your choosing where you picked a not clearly decided line.

For  PhD defense to be like getting the GM title. You would have to show up and individually defend many different subjects and win 7.5/10. Not so easy now is it?

You are aware that this is the crux of the Nature VS Nurture debate, right?

Question: What has the rest of the scientific and philosophical community decided upon with regards to this ideology?

 *AND* the panel would have to be rated high enough themselves

 Yep. But I have seen articles suggesting that outside the US the prestige is much higher and the opportunity cost is far lower in being a professional chess player. In fact it is debatable which career path has more economic reward in less developed countries.

Opinions count for very little, results count for everything.  I fear you have little idea of what being a 2500 GM means.

EDIT: This fits perfectly with my example of the thesis dissertation/defence to get the PhD: a Master plays against a panel of GMs.

Of course, the individual battles is what makes the GM norm different but still difficult. Perhaps I guess I should have said "rough equivalent" in my original post of disagreement.

Interesting aspiration indeed, I also think Seirup is quite on point here. Also I wish you best of luck :)

Now, to all you nay sayers: What's the point? It's not entirely a bad thing to have ambitions, is it? Also your whole lineup of arguments make you sound awfully bitter. If this was your initial plan, it worked.

Would you be able to ask GM/Dr John Nunn, PhD to join our discussion?

I know very well what being a 2500 GM means. I have talked with a few GMs and IMs about what it took to get their title, and how much talent is needed.

Good luck in your chase of the GM title ,but remember it is a VERY HARD goal to reach or we would have many more then we already have. While Getting to GM, or even IM would be great I would be happy to get my rating somewhere in the 2200-2250 range it is currently at 1802 but i  admit my work ethic sucks. I am trying to correct that and truly believe i can reach 2200 if i work at it.