10 years 10,000 hours is pretty much the definition of facile. I feel bad for people who buy into it so easily.
Although sure, hard work over a long time is surely the #1 factor in skill.
I've lost a smidgen more than 10,000 blitz games on this site. I hit that milestone last week. If you learn from losing, I should be one of the smartest chess players here.
I think it's about knowing what to NOT calculate.
10 years 10,000 hours is pretty much the definition of facile. I feel bad for people who buy into it so easily.
Although sure, hard work over a long time is surely the #1 factor in skill.
I've lost a smidgen more than 10,000 blitz games on this site. I hit that milestone last week. If you learn from losing, I should be one of the smartest chess players here.
Blitz is for fun, I'm sure you'd agree... sometimes even compulsive.
I've done/neglected some embarrassing things because of blitz marathons. I've heard similar stories from others.
If you have a wife it's not so bad. If you have to cook your own food, sometimes for example you burn dinner 
>10K games is quite a lot of reinforcement -- for good and bad habits unfortunately!
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.
How do you Know that?
How do you Know how hard fischer actually worked? Surly he only knew the answer the true answer to that!
I fear that you are basing your findings on your current work ethic. I'm afraid when most people think they are focused and working hard, they are actually working no way near to their true potential.
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.
How do you Know that?
How do you Know how hard fischer actually worked? Surly he only knew the answer the true answer to that!
I fear that you are basing your findings on your current work ethic. I'm afraid when most people think they are focused and working hard, they are actually working no way near to their true potential.
Don't be silly. He taught himself Russian, so that he could analyze russian chess literature. He dropped out of High School to focus on CHESS. He studied obscure games and books, used learned tactics in identical or similar positions when playing tournaments. For most of his career development he had no support staff or partners, he was a virtual team of one. There was no computer analysis or training, it was all about his solitary dedication to chess. He put in 3 years of touring to compete for the title, he developed new openings and tactics that befuddled Spassky. He was a different player to many in 1972, because of all the work and study he had put in. A saying of his was "chess is life." And we're to assume that it's impossible to determine if he worked hard on his chess?
... I'm afraid when most people think they are focused and working hard, they are actually working no way near to their true potential.
Even if someone is working "no way near to their true potential", does it necessarily follow that the person is not "focused and working hard"?
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.
How do you Know that?
How do you Know how hard fischer actually worked? Surly he only knew the answer the true answer to that!
I fear that you are basing your findings on your current work ethic. I'm afraid when most people think they are focused and working hard, they are actually working no way near to their true potential.
Don't be silly. He taught himself Russian, so that he could analyze russian chess literature. He dropped out of High School to focus on CHESS. He studied obscure games and books, used learned tactics in identical or similar positions when playing tournaments. For most of his career development he had no support staff or partners, he was a virtual team of one. There was no computer analysis or training, it was all about his solitary dedication to chess. He put in 3 years of touring to compete for the title, he developed new openings and tactics that befuddled Spassky. He was a different player to many in 1972, because of all the work and study he had put in. A saying of his was "chess is life." And we're to assume that it's impossible to determine if he worked hard on his chess?
Have you got your wires crossed? I'm not sure what you're alluding to, your comments suggest that fischer worked harder than you could possibly imagine.....which is exactly my point!
learning russian....Dropping out of high school to dedicate to chess......studying obscure games and books.....you sum my point magnificently when you say " it was all about his solitary dedication to chess. He put in 3 years of touring to compete for the title, he developed new openings and tactics that befuddled Spassky. He was a different player to many in 1972, because of all the work and study he had put in. A saying of his was "chess is life." And we're to assume that it's impossible to determine if he worked hard on his chess?
This is my point exactly....fischer greatness is attributed to his ability to work incredibly hard!
... I'm afraid when most people think they are focused and working hard, they are actually working no way near to their true potential.
Even if someone is working "no way near to their true potential", does it necessarily follow that the person is not "focused and working hard"?
When average person thinks he is working hard.....he is actually just working
as i said before....the perception of hard work greatly differs from person to person
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.
How do you Know that?
How do you Know how hard fischer actually worked? Surly he only knew the answer the true answer to that!
I fear that you are basing your findings on your current work ethic. I'm afraid when most people think they are focused and working hard, they are actually working no way near to their true potential.
Don't be silly. He taught himself Russian, so that he could analyze russian chess literature. He dropped out of High School to focus on CHESS. He studied obscure games and books, used learned tactics in identical or similar positions when playing tournaments. For most of his career development he had no support staff or partners, he was a virtual team of one. There was no computer analysis or training, it was all about his solitary dedication to chess. He put in 3 years of touring to compete for the title, he developed new openings and tactics that befuddled Spassky. He was a different player to many in 1972, because of all the work and study he had put in. A saying of his was "chess is life." And we're to assume that it's impossible to determine if he worked hard on his chess?
Have you got your wires crossed? I'm not sure what you're alluding to, your comments suggest that fischer worked harder than you could possibly imagine.....which is exactly my point!
learning russian....Dropping out of high school to dedicate to chess......studying obscure games and books.....you sum my point magnificently when you say " it was all about his solitary dedication to chess. He put in 3 years of touring to compete for the title, he developed new openings and tactics that befuddled Spassky. He was a different player to many in 1972, because of all the work and study he had put in. A saying of his was "chess is life." And we're to assume that it's impossible to determine if he worked hard on his chess?
This is my point exactly....fischer greatness is attributed to his ability to work incredibly hard!
Cmon man you said "how do we know if fischer worked hard only he knows if he did."
We have strong evidence that he did work hard on his chess.
Thats not what i said!
This is a direct copy and paste "How do you Know how hard fischer actually worked?" meaning....he probably work far harder than you think.
His greatness is linked to his incredible work ethic, not necessarily from a gift.
Well the statement can possibly be taken either way, it's not clear, but more times than not, when phrased that way, it sounds like a rebuttal or "on the contrary" type statement on the question of Fischer's dilligence. This coming from someone that scored in the 99th percentile on "reading comprehension" college entrance exams. But I'm glad you cleared it up.
i should have rephrased it. 
You should compare chess to basketball - if you don't have the right talent or natural ability, no amount of training will make you a grandmaster.
Can you list some of the talent needed? Is it purely just iq? Also I thought chess increased iq so if someone started as a baby they would be all be geniuses right?
imo is mostly memory and particularly chess memory and has very little connection with iq. The only slight connection with iq might exists in long time controls where you have some time to use your brain. These thoughts also explain why unbelievably young kids can frequently beat adults on chess and especially in speed games. kids have remarkable memories when very young and surely most 8-9 year olds aren't smarter than a grown up (I am not talking about prodigies, but normal kids that happen to be good at chess).
It is very hard to find exactly what is required for being good at chess. I feel that starting young is important, having good memory, being able to visualize clearly (I guess that this is a trait, that not many ppl have and therefor, might make big difference), having good logic and later on (probably near the master level) imagination (before that, wild imagination will probably hold u back). Also, loving the game and constantly thinking about it, will help a ton as in everything else. I am sure there many more skills required (some that we can't even imagine), but those are the ones that pop first to my mind.
can anyone help me how to play chess
What not to calculate -- someone mentioned that above. I have found that to be the truth. When I had an OTB partner (before he cuckolded me), he insisted that I buy a chess clock b/c I will sit for 20 minutes / move calculating at the board. I only play 45/45 or 90/30 now. I absolutely stink at 10/15 or similar. I suspect it's because I lack the intuition to know what to 'trust' is a good line to consider.
As far as the original question, there is some God given talent involved. Carlsen was chess obsessed as a kid. I mean... at 13 he drew against Kasparov. Some of my kids (5 of them) seem to have a natural talent for chess while others have little interest in it. My son, for instance (9) recently got fed up with losing to his older sister (10 at the time). He started thinking more carefully about how to trap her. By 'trapping' he meant thinking more than one move ahead. He has since steamrolled her and she quit playing. Meanwhile, my youngest (4) has a spatial memory that may make her a superb player.
Drive is a big part of it. But raw talent plays a role too.
10 years 10,000 hours is pretty much the definition of facile. I feel bad for people who buy into it so easily.
Although sure, hard work over a long time is surely the #1 factor in skill.
I've lost a smidgen more than 10,000 blitz games on this site. I hit that milestone last week. If you learn from losing, I should be one of the smartest chess players here.
Blitz is for fun, I'm sure you'd agree... sometimes even compulsive.
I've done/neglected some embarrassing things because of blitz marathons. I've heard similar stories from others.
If you have a wife it's not so bad. If you have to cook your own food, sometimes for example you burn dinner
>10K games is quite a lot of reinforcement -- for good and bad habits unfortunately!
I'm married and I do the cooking. Understand I haven't played 10,000 games. That's the number I've lost. I have more wins than losses.
If you have a wife it isn't unlikely she comes to talk about the kids at school while you are playing that damn blitz and after a few seconds she asks you "are you listening to me?!"
If you have a wife it isn't unlikely she comes to talk about the kids at school while you are playing that damn blitz and after a few seconds she asks you "are you listening to me?!"
When the kids were young, yes. My baby is 25. Our kids at home now all have four legs and sharp teeth.
The one who didn't make it to GM, had something like a 2600 performance rating at the age of 14. She would have been GM if she had stayed interested. Instead she quit. That doesn't say much against L.Polgar's hypothesis.
https://www.chess.com/news/rome-tournament-1989-2415 8,5 / 9 with a round about 2900 Performance, some sources give even something like 2930.
And a very old man was angry about her: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxeiGipoFSE
That "old man" was a Viktor Korchnoi. Here are they games, also against Judit and Susan.
Nothing against Polgar sisters, just think the mighty Korchnoi deserves some respect.
... You never hear successful people describe other successful as talented. ...
"Kasparov explained Morphy's strength in this way: 'I think that it was a combination of a unique natural talent and brilliant erudition. ...'" - GM Franco (2016)