Why are people talking about getting a title when they're complete beginners?

Even a real 1800 USCF knows how much harder they would need to work to get NM title, but you have literal 1200s asking how to get a title when they keep hanging pieces in half of the moves in their games.

I know I would have to study for at least a decade to get a title.

I have been asked similar questions by people who do not know much about math. Doesn't seem like a big deal to me.

Is like, hey, i'm playing 10 games of football, and i'm asking after , how much practice and time do i need to be as good as Messi and Ronaldo. Or i take some acting classes, and ask how much time do i need to become notorious like Al Pacino or Robert de Niro. This is ridiculous.

You should ask them. They will probably tell you why. My guess is that it's because like most any other pursuit, it's pretty common to wonder about what it takes to get better, or even be the best. The examples already mentioned are good ones, soccer and acting. But it could also apply to basketball, cooking, driving, or any other activity or profession. When I learned how to play chess (and golf and tennis,etc) I wondered what it would take to be a professional. It sounds like these people aren't even wondering about that, but simply wondering what it takes to get a title. Sounds pretty normal to me.

they're just hoping. i know i won't be able to get a chess title in my life. i think it's other people lying to them saying 'your really good you'll be master soon'. i'd rather be told the truth that i'm crap instead of people lying to me for no reason whatsoever.

"... In a recently published issue of the journal 'Intelligence' there were numerous studies, analysis, and pieces on the 10,000hr rule. In particular, one study by David Hambrick and colleagues entitled 'Deliberate practice: Is that all it takes to become an expert', sought out to 'test Ericsson’s claim that "individual differences in ultimate performance can largely be accounted for by differential amounts of past and current levels of practice.' As a refresher, Ericsson was the original researcher who developed and then publicized the concepts, which then took off with Gladwell’s Outliers, Geoffrey Colvin’s Talent is Overrated, Daniel Coyle’s The Talent Code, and numerous others who jumped on the bandwagon with their own spin.
In there research Hambrick reanalyzed 12 studies looking at expert performance in chess and music. Similar to Ericsson’s original work, they simply looked at hours of deliberate practice for each and compared it to performance levels along their development. In the chess studies, they found that deliberate practice explained 34% of the variance in performance, and therefore 66% unexplained. Looking at the individual numbers is even more staggering. There were some people who had over 20,000 hours of deliberate practice yet never went beyond Intermediate, the lowest of the three levels (intermediate, expert, and master). Perhaps most striking, was the range of 'masters' was 832 hours to 24,284hrs to reach mastery.
When looking at Music, the results were very similar. 29.9% of the variance in performance was explained by amount of deliberate practice.
The whole study is worth a read as it delves into intelligence, personality, and other factors related to reaching 'expertise.' However, the take away to me is simply common sense. Does practice make you better? Of course it does, but it isn’t the be all end all. And you know what, neither is genetics. ..."
http://www.scienceofrunning.com/2014/03/why-gladwells-10000-rule-is-just-plain.html

I think it's because chess is a factual game. For example, there is often a 'best' move in any position, especially if said beginner has access to Stockfish and believes in it slavishly. Also, no matter how deep a combination, strategy or tactic, once it appears on the board you see why it has caused you to lose and can trace what you should have played to stop it. It's 'only' a case of seeing it in the first place. Surely it's possible? How hard can it be?

Indeed. Give a high schooler who thinks Trig Identities are difficult a proof of why "a * 0 = 0" for elements in a field, and they will quickly realize that becoming good at math is a long shot away.

However, with Stockfish, any 1200 can find any move, and feel like he/she "found" it easily. 

I think you're on to something here. 

I don't mean to spam or advertise, but:

Possibly of interest:

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/too-many-people-on-this-site-want-to-run-before-learning-to-walk

10 years? This sounds ridiculous! You can do it far faster than that.

I know someone who went from 1000 or so to 2400+ in 5-6 years.

I know someone else who went from 1800-2200 in 2 years or less.

If you are lazy with your study or study the wrong way it might take that long...

"I have no real timeline for when I would want to achieve NM, but hopefully I can get the title by the end of 2018, which is when I'll be able to play in tournaments."

- Cherub_Enjel

(from his profile)

Sounds like your goal is to get a title in <2 years, not 10.

Hyperbole in the forums?

Please don't make the forums worse with exaggeration or lies, there is enough junk in the forums as it is.

Thanks Logozar - I hope I can become an NM in 2 years. 

It might take 2, it might take 10 - who knows? 

"... The level at which one plays is governed by a number of vague and poorly understood factors. The first is what one might term 'natural talent'. ..." - GM John Nunn (2006)

This quote might as well be about life, or many aspects of life, instead of chess. Just replace natural talent with something else.  

 The 10,000 rule is correct, your success determines how you study and what material you use; if study correctly a player can achieve expert or master title, but they have to be realistic in their goals. It might take correct study of two to five years to become an expert; most players try to do it in weeks or in one month, ridiculous and unattainable goals will always fall short of them accomplishing their attended goals.

I see now. So, according to you, if i play football for 10000 hours, i will play like Messi? If i cook for 10000 and take cooking lessons, i will become Master Chef? Come on guys, this is a joke. In every activity, you must have talent.