Will I be able to reach Master level?

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

Carlsen himself is not too proud about his genes but of course you know better...

And of course Ziryab's claim A lot of what people recognize as talent turns out to be a consequence of hard work is 100% correct.

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.

The simplest answer to the OPs question is a question:

Are you willing to put in the work, even if that means making sacrifices?

Understand that work is not just hours of labor, but focused work that targets weaknesses.

People don't realize how rare putting in 6-8 hours a day learning chess is in the tournament circuit. Most 1600s don't do this and if they did they wouldn't be 1600+ for very long and probably make 2000+ in a year with that kind of study. I'm not talking super gmail types those guys have photographic memories. Just your typical master. It is double you just have to do more than collect chess books as a hobby and actually study them not use them as mug coasters

One must have the luxury of working on chess. Do not equate my point with bankrupt American political ideology. 

I believe in talent, but that it is largely overrated. Also talent is not a single thing. What is chess talent? Spatial aptitude is probably one factor that could make the development of chess skill more likely. Memory is certainly beneficial, too. What else? If we list a bunch of factors, we might then find strong GMs who lack some that account for the success of others.

Whatever your natural talents, these are secondary to a strong work ethic, self-discipline, and a training regimen that targets weaknesses (coaching is the best way to get this targeted training).

Mr Penrose, please read more carefully and do not attribute to me statements that I did not make. I used the word "lazy" once in jest as mockery of those who believe that 12 yo Magnus Carlsen had not worked hard. He worked very hard beginning about age 9. He also demonstrated exceptional memory before he took up chess.

I also noted that some of the hundreds of school children to whom I've taugh chess are lazy. I did not accuse the "talent" faction in this thread of laziness.

You talk of sloppy generalising, but you cannot distinguish one poster from another and are blending the statements of several into a indigestible porridge, which you then criticise as inedible.

I have made no promises that everyone who works hard, and appropriately, will become a master. However, I have been clear that hard work offers the best chance.

Some of what you are trying to convince me of as a refutation of your porridge resembles what I have already said earlier in this thread.

I just love how this always becomes an either/or discussion. Talent vs hard work. Whereas it's completely evident that you need both to attain lofty goals. No one becomes a prodigy without hours upon hours of study. Carlsen was great at age 12. At which point he had probably put in about 9000 hours of chess study - because, hell kids have all the time in the world. However, he also happened to have a number of skills built in that helped him convert those hours into mastery: a great memory, concentration, mono-maniacal focus, the will to win, dedication.

So, in a nutshell there's your answer: success is when the hours spent combine with a skillset. 

If in doubt: read Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell for reference to a huge swathe of scientific study in the area. (The book is often lazily paraphrased as the 10,000 hour theory: if you spend that amount of time on anything you will master it.)

The problem, Mr Penrose, is that right after I wrote, "I believe in talent", and sought to inquire into its nature, you claim that I said those who believe in talent are lazy. There is no logical relationship between what I have written and those statements you attribute to me. Hence, I call your assertions porridge--a metaphor for an indistinguishable blend of ufnknown ingredients.

I agree, klimski.

I've only read part of Gladwell's Outliers, but my impression is that he slights the centrality of "deliberate practice" in his discussion of the 10,000 hours. But, perhaps, that impression stems from bad summaries by his readers.

I think that in general, David Shenk does a better job than Gladwell of summarizing research, although Gladwell's writing has other merits that helped lift his books to best seller status. Shenk writes about the 10,000 hours and "deliberate practice" in The Genius in All of Us.

Sometimes I like it when God speaks. :)

You will be able to reach master level when you believe you can reach master level. Until then you will sabotage your efforts and live a humble life as a chess patzer. Having said that, it doesn't mean you "will" reach master level.

There's no such thing as talent to play chess. There might be intellectual proficiency in some areas that benefict a chess player, but even so, most of it can be trained. If you're good at maths, mechanics, and areas on the field, it's totally viable that you'll be good at chess starting at any age.

Speaking by personal experience, i didn't play any serious chess until i was 16, i was about a 1200 level at the time. At 18 with not that much dedication i recieved the first national rate rounding about 1600, at 20 i got my first fide rating on 1964 rate, and i was starting to do elo performance of about 2,1k at the time. Then i quit chess for like 10 years because of college, work, and life. But i have no doubts that i'd have reached master level after this time. All you have to do is getting 1-2 books for each game phase, pratice it alot and you'll have your rate rising steadily. Do not limit your own chess by just studying openings.

In fact i'm on the opinion that openings should be the last thing someone studies. Most people in chess think that chess is all about openings, many players get stuck on their rate because the memorize 100s of opening lines but get stuck once someone is outside the book, but openings isn't exactly a must have until you are like a IM/GM level. For lower rates, getting experience in mid-game and endgame is a dozen times more important to shape your chess ability and vision. Learn about combinations, pawn structures, positional development, destruction and exploitation of opponent structures, and you'll suddenly learn what to do with any mid-game and play like a master at that level, you'll just have then to reeinforce yourself with opening knowledge after you've mastered those other 2 phases.

You realize there's a difference between being a lifelong amateur or dedicate yourself into it? You just help on agreeing with me, even a genius without studying is just an amateur. Being a master is about "mastering".

I think it's worth repeating what a couple of the masters said in this topic. Squishy said this:  "Chess is about accumulating patterns, plans and themes - the more you have in your head, the better" and Prhren said: "...I believe that effective training should be individual, after a good consideration of a player's strengths and weaknesses"

So to be able to keep improving you need to be able to shovel more and more  patterns, plans and themes into your head - but how to do so differs for each of us. And probably differs over time. So in addition to the hard work/talent question, you also need the perseverence to find what works for you, the wisdom to focus on the right things, and the patience and determination to see it through.

And you need to have exactly the right tolerance for losing - so it makes you want to discover your mistakes but not quit the game altogether

   This word "talent" means different things to different people. Let's use another word. (I won't call it a synonym because then we would have another offshoot argument).

   So, we can agree that to reach master level we need:

   1. Really good training.

   2. Motivation that fuels the self discipline and drive to work assiduously, day in, day out through all the hard work.

   Now, some would say: "That's it."  Maybe they are correct. But it seems to me that the individual also needs talent...no, that is a terrible word, strike it out...I mean: aptitude.

   I maintain that unless we add "aptitude" the individual is quickly going to lose interest and motivation. And the chess instructor is going to feel akin to a music instructor teaching someone who is deaf how to play the violin (and I don't want to hear about Beethoven) or a monkey how to tap dance.