Yes but there is always hope & probably a question of economics & funding as usual.
It's why I am so against software proliferation & use. Seems like adding an electric-motor to your bike in a cycle-race then denying you ever turned it on. Even for the uphill parts !
Great point, Joey; hadn't thought of that. I'm in that way too, netzach - don't own chess software or use it. Just read chess books and magazines
Chess clubs! Pushing wood.We use chess.com to make it easy.A proliferation of ease.
Nice article coming from a 1500.
It's the coaches that make the "talent." I would imagine there being an extremely small number of exceptions to the fact that a kid who is 2200 or more at a young age has a coach. These guys are not self-taught, something that I think would represent talent (you need a certain maturity to know how to get better at something, and be willing to put in the discipline).
It's not that I believe that talent is completely nonexistent, and that everyone starts equally good at everything, it's just that I think "early signs" of anything are rather vague. Maybe it was me being good at math or something that made me beat all the kids in my chess club in the 4th grade, but this "early sign" didn't get me far at all -- I still played at a, at most, 1000 level for the following 5 years or so, mostly because I wasn't so serious and didn't have the discipline (and, of course, no coach).
So I was better at not blundering my pieces than my opponent. Any of those guys who had the discipline to learn the game would have totally destroyed me quickly.
I think that, depending on your passion for the game and what you are willing to go through to improve (for instance, pellik's schedule, one that many would just not be willing to do, preferring an easier method like reading a library of chess books, hoping the authors will learn the game for them), you can almost completely replace talent. So again, I think everyone has different aptitudes, but, under the right conditions, I think that talent can end up being completely unnecessary for reaching a high level of chess, even grandmaster.
Think about it: the only thing that makes a strong tactical player is their understanding of patterns. Do GMs have some special magic to their tactics? No, they use the same system, patterns, but just know that one system, open to all, much better than we do, because they know and understand more patterns. If there is no magic, I don't think there is need for early talent (although it can help). Are grandmasters more creative? In the chess sense, sure, but then, where does creativity come from? When you have seen an unintuitive pattern a thousand times, it could eventually become quite the opposite. I think it makes pretty good sense that pattern recognition, almost automatically, draws you to certain moves.
People often use magic to describe things they don't understand. There is a perfectly worldly method to what grandmasters do, it's just that they are so far above the level of most players that it's particularly striking, and hard to grasp.
Is your CM title a FIDE title or a USCF one? There is a big difference between the two. I don't think the USCF CM title should even exist.
In any case, your 2188 FIDE rating should qualify you pretty well. If you combine both the 50 hours in lessons and the analysed games, your price does seem quite low. Perhaps that's your strategy? 
Just a reminder. A little humble pie hurts no one. And humor heals.
*(with citation to @Snakes).
Maybe I'm stupid, but I don't get this joke. 
"My idealogy certainly is applicable"... Geez... What must that be like? It's "analogy". "idealogy" is something different. It's not a matter of it being misconstrued - it's that it is completely wrong. chess is a minimax branching process. At every step of the way there is something hostile trying to do it's worst to you. Building a house is nothing like that. The house is almost completely compliant relative to chess. Building a house is a series of parallel (hopefully) linear processes of plumbing, roofing, wiring, dry walling, etc..
Utterly different and there is less than zero value in saying that chess is like building a house.
Teehee! You forgot the "foundation"!
Yeah, I was discussing process and the foundation of a house is not really part of the process of house building. The foundation doesn't happen in parallel with anything else, generally requires heavy equipment (a backhoe and a cement truck), and is usually just contracted out. In other words, you don't have to know anything about the process of building a house to get the foundation in; you just put up stakes and call the pros.
Regardless of what you attempt to accomplish Joseph, without a proper foundation, all of the other works there after, will fail without proper support.
I wasn't referring to a house first of all. Secondly, if I am "the builder" and not the home owner and I put in a faulty foundation for any building, but I put in a really nice, eco friendly, smart electrical system that can be controlled from a laptop computer halfway around the world, what good is it?
This to me is no different that trying to play GM level chess, having sound theory for my middle and end games' strategy and tactics, but not really playing sound openings...
You can try tearing this idea down again, but your rants won't change people's reading comprehension.
@Netzach
Beginners should simply examine & look at the position on the board. Think about the moves & principles of chess & do their best. That's it. Full-stop end of story.
Disagree. That would be limiting onself. We have hundreds of years of chess knowledge bestowed upon us. Why not make use of them? Beginners wont dream up anything great by 'thinking about the moves'. And if they keep playing in this manner, eventually they will reach the same conclusions and ideas which are already present in chess literature. So why waste time? Beginners should focus more on chess theory. No one at this level has to rediscover anything. Some players may be talented enough to figure out everything for themselves, but for majority including me, this was simply not possible.
@nameno - You were previously using the analogy of a chess game being a house. That the game is the house and the foundation is the opening. Now you want to change that to something about theory for GM games (as if you know anything about that).
Your analogy here is completely stupid as well. The house fails with either a messed electrical system or a messed foundation. Seems that you need both of them. Your earlier post was emphasizing the importance of the foundation over the other areas of chess. Just another messed up analogy. This is why they include analogies in IQ tests. People have trouble with them.
Here's the original...
I see people state here, quite often, that end game and middle game knowledge is more important than opening knowledge. I would say this only applies for players below a certain rating. Many folks seem to suggest the 1800-2000 range as a cut off.
Beyond that, think of a game of chess as a building that is being built. If the foundation is faulty, does it really matter how skilled one is at installing the best amenities in the upper floors, if the foundation won't support it's developmental fruition?
The recommendation to learn tactics and end games will make you a much better player than average, if done well. It takes good opening knowledge, along with middle and end game pattern recognition, to use the right strategies and find the tactics to win at the highest levels of chess. This probably explains how you out perform your friend in certain aspects of chess, but yet he manages a higher rating. Also I would say your playing habits contribute.
You were originally saying it was flawed because it wasn't good to tell beginners this type of thing. Notice I was saying this idea applied to players about the master level. The way titled players prepare to play those above them requires a different focus in trainer than a beginner. Now you are further trying to discredit sound reasoning presented through analogy. Face it Joey, you aren't smart enough, or well educated enough to defeat my argument.
Heh, hate to jump in the middle of this, but if you want to relate a phase of the game (opening, mid, end) to a foundation, I think it would have to be the endgame. Why are certain opening ideas good or bad? Because they transition into good or bad middlegames. Why are middlegames good or bad? Because of the endgame. You can't properly evaluate what's in front of you if you don't understand where you're headed...
Unless you always attack and win/lose in <30 moves 
but you see my point.
nameno - spare us your advice for players 800 rating points above you. You seem to have all kinds of odd grandiose issues. As far as my education and intellect goes, want to compare those things. For starters, I have a Ph.D. and have taught at 3 different "most competitive colleges". Then I turned 35.... I was smarter than you are now when I was 11. Way smarter. Not close....
I've met plenty of educated dummies with no common sense. I am continually having to deal with the wonderful abstract thinking of college educated engineers, who draw pictures of things and expect that because they thought it, it automatically can be reality. I get the sense, more and more that it isn't only engineers who are this way. I am often disguisted at the lack discernment general practitioners have (doctors), for all the education "their" doctorates provided them. After running into you, it only reinforces the idea of how brainwashed many college educated people are. They will go along with anything for favor and and dollar.
BTW, you are so full of yourself that you need a serious enima...
Oh and um... since you are so in control of your mind ( through your superior intellect of course), lets see you quit thinking...after you've thought about it and realized you aren't as in control of your mind as you thought you are, try to remember the following.
The next time you can't remember where your cars keys are and then you realize they are in your hand, don't feel bad, just remember, if you can, you don't know what brain cell each piece of information you have been in contact with is stored, nor do you have the ability to recall all of those pieces at your beckoning. All you can do is use what is presented to you, you do not have complete control over what is presented to you. You are only as astute as you are allowed to be. You think no one one else can be unless they have walked the miles you have had to.
For all of you education, it took all of this time and a nobody like me to point out how arrogant you are and how you are no more special than any other human alive, yet you insist on putting yourself on a pedestal, as if you are beyond reproof. You really must be oblivious if you can look yourself in the mirror and take yourself seriously.
nameno - spare us your advice for players 800 rating points above you. You seem to have all kinds of odd grandiose issues. As far as my education and intellect goes, want to compare those things. For starters, I have a Ph.D. and have taught at 3 different "most competitive colleges". Then I turned 35.... I was smarter than you are now when I was 11. Way smarter. Not close....
BTW Jo, I love how you quickly leave a failed argument that you lost horribly and try to deflect and or over load the defender, by changing the subject. This isn't chess tactics. Running from your failed failed arguments is understandable, but atleast be a man and admit it, instead of mouse and go hide in a hole in the wall waiting to try to steal your next morsel.
Let's all have a group hug and go out for ice cream lol
Heh, hate to jump in the middle of this, but if you want to relate a phase of the game (opening, mid, end) to a foundation, I think it would have to be the endgame. Why are certain opening ideas good or bad? Because they transition into good or bad middlegames. Why are middlegames good or bad? Because of the endgame. You can't properly evaluate what's in front of you if you don't understand where you're headed...
Unless you always attack and win/lose in
I had previously explained that is why for beginners in particular, it is good to study end games and tactics more so that openings. At some point however, if your opening is so bad you don't make it to the middle or end game, all of that study was moot.
My undeniable basis Joey keeps trying to deny in vein, is that it doesn't really matter what parts of chess you learn first, as long as you learn all of the necessary parts to play well and execute a winning game plan. I expressed this as it applies to players about class a or master and up, that is the point at which it becomes more critical to study openings.
No I din't lose that argument. It was over before it started. You don't have the mental material to see that. Sorry. Truly.
I can try slower if you want, but ultimately there is a limit. Your analogies are completely stupid. Not a little stupid but very stupid. That you don't think so is just further confirm that they are stupid. However, if you want to persist put up $500 and I'll put up $10000 and we will have two people on the National Academy decide. Interested?
The funny thing is for all of your attempted mental maneuvering, you have keep crashing into the roadblock of, my opinion and the truth aren't decided by a vote. I do really believe you think I am dumb, you don't have to try proving it and your miscalculation is further evidence of how you could be so far off base about yourself.
Hmm who should I believe the one rated 1492 or the one rated 2305
Ever compare teams on paper and see your logic defied?
Screw that. How about the one who has spent his whole life getting an education or the guy who has spent his whole life rejecting it?
There is a difference between rejecting the truth and accepting a bunch of opinions. Choosing to learn the majorities' opinions doesn't make one educated of the truth, just confused. I realized along time ago I didn't need your pieces of paper you are so proud of to be educated or more intelligent than other people. They are two different things, yet so many of you insist they are the same.
"True Blue"