What do you think of this?

Sorry if this is the oldest thing out there, but do you believe that everyone either "gets" or "doesn't get" chess on a very basic level?

It's not to say the people who don't naturally get it couldn't get better and even very good through training and practice, but there's some intuitive thing they're missing that the few who seem to get it understand. I think that in the end, even if someone like this gets very good, they're still just emulating the people who do get it.

I suspect I'm in the majority, the people who don't "get" it. I'm not too terrible, but when a friend of mine (who I would say "gets it" on a very deep level) explains subtle positional things to me, I can see what he means, but it's something I would never notice on my own.

What do you think?

That's what I think is the difference, though-- the people who get it can just look at a position and know, while plebs like me only get it after it's explained.

No one started out looking at a position and knowing.  Take any world champ a week after they learned the rules, put them in an average club, and they'll lose all their games.

You would probably be surprised to know how hard some of those players have worked to get as good as they are.  If they love chess, then this "work" is enjoyable and just accumulates over time so they would hardly call it work... but ask for specifics, have them list the books they've read or time spent in analysis or other methods and you might be shocked.

In a book I recently purchased (Tisdall's "Improve Your Chess Now") he relates one training method of Soviet GM, Alexander Beliavsky, was to play through and analyze five games a day, blindfold (meaning without the use of a board).  To me, analyzing five games without a board would be a tremendous amount of work for one day, but I'm sure to Beliavsky that was not even a full day's work.

Take one of those people who you think just "gets it" and ask them how many chess books they've read cover to cover... then compare with how many you've read in their entirety (first 2 chapters then putting it up doesn't count).  Or perhaps if they spend a lot of time analysing their tournament games or GM games or just positions they find interesting and compare with your work. etc.

Of course take 10 people and have them study the same amount and you'll have 10 different strengths, my point is no one just innately "knows" chess without working on their game.  Of course GMs have a lot of natural talent to help them out, some even becoming titled players at a very young age, but they all had to study to get where they are.

I get too focused on one part of the board or on my offensive strategy. I am too slow at analyzing the whole board. I would like to have the talent to really see and understand everything that is going on over the whole board, quickly. I think that might be one of the differences between me and players with natural talent.

And, of course the literature abounds with stories of kids who claim to have "got" Chess at an early age, and go on to be GM's and Junior Champions.  But in general, for the most of us, I would say that every day you play, you have a chance to see something you've never encountered before, and you have a chance to distill that information and put it to use.  In that sense, we are constantly learning the game of Chess, and thereby "getting it" more each day.