Will I be able to reach Master level?

You're still a kid, (like me, yay) so you just might be able to reach master level soon enough.

Probably not but possible, You are in much the same boat as me we still have a slight chance but it getting lower of a chance each year. I do wish i had some money for a coach like you do so consider yourself lucky for that

There's occasional evidence that I'm still improving. I've reached personal rating peaks in several rating categories, including correspondence and blitz, in 2015. My OTB peak was in 2012, but less than two months ago I won my first weekend Swiss. My current blitz rating on chess.com is the highest it has been since 2011.

I'm not optimistic that I'll ever make master, but nor have I given up hope. I've come close to USCF Expert and believe that I will get to that level in the next couple of years.

I think that NativeChessMinerals offers a clear explanation of the sort of problem that I have with your connection, however.

However, as you earned an M.B.A., you should certainly understand the Peter Principle better than those of us who have not probed deeper than Wikipedia.* Perhaps there's something more to it that you might elucidate so that we can understand what you are getting at.

My flexibility and broad knowledge has led several times to being asked to teach college courses that were outside my level of competency. However, sans the Peter Principle, I never taught these courses multiple times.

*Wikipedia did not exist in the 1970s when my Dad asked me to proofread an article that he wrote concerning the Peter Principle and his 20 years in the U.S. Air Force. Even though I learned about the principle while yet a lad in high school, I don't know any more than one can find in Wikipedia.  

   I am very impressed with your ongoing chess improvement. That and your willingness to pick a fight and to quibble over the Peter Principle. Also, your dad's career in the A.F. Not to mention you have a doctorate vs. my masters ("one upmanship" at its finest). Also your superior proofreading competence. Oh, and your flexibility and broad knowledge.

   My profuse apology if I missed anything. And for having this mental image that you are a nerd, which of course you probably are not (but I can't be sure).

   Saying all this, you jumped on me for no reason except that you are a scab who has far too much unproductive free time to quibble about the Peter Principle, which I used...and properly so...in a "loose" sense to endorse the sentiment expressed by Yeres.

   So? That leaves us with me telling you, politely to be sure: "Buzz off, Bubba!" 

...furthermore, I expect you'll make the chess master level about the same time that pigs fly!

But, best of luck (you'll need it...lol)!

I'll accept the "loose sense" as sensible enough for my limited understanding. Remember that a PhD in any field that is not business is not above an MBA when the subject is business.

I'll concede the nerd too.

I'm more of a referee than a fighter.

 

I have come to the conclusion after coaching a number of children who range from extremely lazy to quite industrious that capacity for work is the most important talent. Some people have an intrinsic need to get better at whatever they do. These bring focus, time, and energy to training. They get better.

I've seen children who when they first learn chess quickly rise to the top of a small group, but three years later are no better than after playing two months.

A lot of what people recognize as talent turns out to be a consequence of hard work.  

Master is closer to semi-pro. IMs are pro.

LOL I love chessplayers who equate titles and 1st place trophies to some mysterious god-given talent with little to no regard or acknowledgment to the many thousands of hours of study that it takes to EARN chess mastery.

It's been proven that when given a random non-chess like position, one which couldn't occur in a normal game that titled players faired no better than novices. Take from that what you will.

Hard working average kid? Sure. Maybe people underestimate how much work in this case.

Not hard working with genes like Carlsen? Sure. Maybe people overestimate how much work in this case.

Exactly.

Have you seen his two blindfold clock simuls? Amazing. (He played 5 people at once, blindfold, each game was timed, and they didn't move in order, they could call out moves randomly whenever they were made.)

For those of us who don't know what it's like playing at a GM level, much less at a level where you crush average GMs like Carlsen, that's a small taste of how exceptional his abilities are.

Lazy boy Magnus Carlsen says that he remembers 10,000 chess games. I suppose that he absorbed all of these by putting chess books under his pillow.

There are more pro basketball players in my state than there are players rated +2000 OTB. In the US, there are more NFL players currently active on rosters (not including practice squad players) than there are living masters. 

It's more unusual to find a chess master than a pro football player.

Abraham, how many of students have made master?

Let me try again:

How many of YOUR students have made master?

100% Agree. To reach master level is about putting in alot of time. The problem is people underestimate how much work is needed and think its just talent. 

If you're a later starter, but willing to put in a few hours a day for a few years, you will reach that level. You need to treat it like a part time job, not just a hobbie, have systematic training and review with a coach. Chess is about accumulating patterns, plans and themes --> the more you have in your head, the better.

I don't think that he said he remembers them perfectly, although many people seem to have taken his claim in that way.

Carlsen: I’m not a genius. Sloppy? Perhaps. It’s like this: When I am feeling good, I train a lot. When I feel bad, I don’t bother. I don’t enjoy working to a timetable. Systematic learning would kill me.

Carlsen: I am chaotic and tend to be lazy. My trainer recognised that and as a rule allowed me to practise whatever I felt like at the time.

She isn't. But she seems to be smart, and she has cut to the essense of pop Country "music".

Anyway, my point is hard work alone is not good enough. You want to say it's good enough for FM? Ok, I will believe you. But work ethic is not a good point to bring up when someone mentions Carlsen. Yes, Carlsen worked hard, but all professionals work hard. There can only be one world champion.

Carlsen says he is not a genius, this is too little too late. His achievements have already spoken for him.