Why are some people slower than others at chess?

I think this thread is drifting more to who can become a GM than in answering the original intent of the question:  "I for instance am struggling with chess I am just making so many blunders and have no gameplan after making a few moves in the opening. I hope I can become rated 2100-2200 eventually so I can reap the full mental benefits of chess."

Considering your rating is under 1000 right now, I would look for gains in smaller increments before thinking about 2100-2200.  I think you need to see more patterns, aka Tactical Motifs (a great list is here: http://chesstempo.com/tactical-motifs.html) and maybe study the general principles first to get your rating jumping.  Then you'll be standing higher on the "mountain" and you'll be able to identify what else you need to go higher.

Personally, I have 2116 USCF correspondence rating - from the 1970's when you couldn't use computers to cheat - and, if given 3 days/move, I can recall enough theory, strategy, tactics, etc. to play a d@mn good game.  But put 10-15 minutes on the clock and I don't have enough time to put together a solid plan, I miss tactical patterns - sometimes including easy forks or mate-in-3's, and often have to play "hope chess" to stay out of time trouble.

I've returned to chess after a long time away, and tried to assess WHY I have these weaknesses. A lot of it is tactical weakness. If you can't recognize a lot patterns QUICKLY it takes you longer to realize which moves to start evaluating. As IM Danny Rensch says in his patterns "...you should know" videos here, if you smell smoke, there's probably a tactic you can use in there somewhere.  Recognizing patterns helps you "smell smoke."

And if you can't recognize the tactics available, how can you decide on a solid strategy/game plan?  Finally, one -definitely including me- can develop bad habits of the mind, especially when playing only less than 30 minute games where developing a depth of thinking isn't easy.  Someone showed me Dan Heisman's A Guide to Chess Improvement: The Best of Novice Nook.  It has a great, 70 page chapter on Thought Process and then an 18 page chapter on Time Management. I ordered it from Amazon the next day.

So, for my foreseeable future in chess, my middle name is "Tactics."  I hope to improve on tactics and how I process them in my mind.  Eventually, we'll know if it helped!

OK sure   You have no talent in the french horn then? 

This may as well be some 6.5 foot basketball player saying "I work hard, and that's why I'm in the NBA" to a 5.5 foot person, telling them it's remotely plausible. 

Your argument proves nothing since you have no idea how talented you are in French Horn (which I'm betting is pretty talented, if your claims are true). 

No one ever claimed that hard work wasn't necessary by the way. But we're talking about GM here. You can't just break through "most" of the barriers - you need to break through pretty all of them, in your analogy.

You need both talent and hard work. 

some as lasker said, "look to the second good move" and some are just stupid.

yes. it is true.

some, if not many , people are quite stupid.

Obviously, if someone is 5.5ft then they are not going to be a champion in the  NBA.....buts that not talent you're talking about, thats a physical deficiency. thats like me saying to one of my students you're not talented on the horn because you have no arms! 

Most people who are at the top of their game in whatever they do, get very annoyed when people call them  talented. The statement completely ignores the fact they have had to work extremely hard for a very long time to get where they are.

Talent is the RESULT of hard work!

Lets take mozart, a man that most people call a genius. It takes 10,000 hours or purposeful practice to master something, about 10 years to the average person. Mozart reached this figure by the time he was 8 years old. by the time he was 20 he had reached the 35,000 hour mark. mozart was not a genius because he was gifted. He was a genius because he had an incredible super human work ethic.

I think we need to redefine word  "talent" From "natural aptitude", to, " the ability to work hard"

Very interesting happening in the current NBA is that Boston Celtics PG Isaiah Thomas is playing great and a candidate for league MVP.  He is 5'7.  However, modern rule changes have made it easier for smaller outside players and shooters, perhaps he wouldn't have done as well if he emerged in the 1980s.

Same reason why some are introverts and some are extroverts.

What reason is there to believe that all physical limitations are easily visible?

i didn't say they weren't. my comment was directly related to the  NBA example.

Can't speak for anyone else but I'm slow because I'm old, worn down, not fit, and I can't stop thinking about girls.

Hard work and talent is not even enough in most cases. A little luck or better... lots of luck.

Cherub_Enjel wrote:

No one ever claimed that hard work wasn't necessary by the way. But we're talking about GM here. You can't just break through "most" of the barriers - you need to break through pretty all of them, in your analogy.

You need both talent and hard work. 

There's no need to categorize - it's a spectrum of "talent" or "ability". Pretty much everyone has some strong points to them, but for many there's no natural aptitude for chess. It may be for something else though. Also, it's important to start early - there's a reason no GM has learned chess after the age of 20, again. I believe the oldest is Rubinstein, who learned at age 16.

Sorry, but I believe  aptitude is a leaned skill.

i'm going to say something now that people might be uncomfortable with. 

You never hear successful people describe other successful as talented. But you always hear unsuccessful people describe successful people as talented. 

Thats so they can justify why they are better than them, when the real reason is that they just did not work hard enough.

No, it's perfectly explainable. When successful people (in some field) talk about other competitors who failed to beat them, they're only talking about the pool of competitors that had the same opportunities, but perhaps failed to work as hard. When a pro-sportsmen talks about being successful over rivals, he's only talking about those who had a competitive chance against him, but failed, perhaps due to not working hard enough. 

To imply that one can be successful at *any field* given hard work is ridiculous.

Luckily, life is such that you can still be "successful" without having world-class ability in a specific field. 

The bottom line is: know what you're good/talented at - and work really hard at that.

Bringing this back to the main topic - some people are simply not cut out for chess in any way.

It's possible to work less than someone, and also improve more than them. It's possible to work for years and not improve at all.

To be the best you can be, yes you have to work. This is true for everyone even if they have a lot of potential (some people call this talent). But not everyone has potential to be great. This should be obvious. Brains are physiologically different just like any other part of the body.

 If i worked as hard, and at the same age, as some random FM would I be an FM? Sure. Why not.

If I worked as hard, and at the same age as Fischer, would I be world champion level? Absolutely  not.