Will I be able to reach Master level?

Here we go again ...

First, Alfred Binet tested the notion that strong chess players had eidetic memory in the late nineteenth century. What he found instead was that strength in chess was rooted in recognition of patterns. Later studies have built upon this work, most notably the work of Adriaan de Groot (1946, English translation 1965) and also William G. Chase and Herbert A. Simon (1973).

Then, there is this: http://sciencenordic.com/does-photographic-memory-exist 

Then lets forget photographic (or eidetic). You gave an example earlier of an intelligent boy who struggled. By the same token it seems reasonable to assume there are those who have above average pattern acquisition biology to enhance any effort spent studying.

My point being that work is necessary, but not necessarily sufficient.

I think beginning players set their goals too high very often .  Why not set a more reasonable/attainable goal , achieve it , and then set a new goal ?  Thats how I did it and it worked , as a beginner i never thought I would reach master , and my first goal was to be better than a member of the first chess club I joined and he was a B class player .  It took me a few years to do that and then I set my next goal on A class as I was less than a full class away I thought this logical . When I did reach A class it was a very rude awakening for me as I was bumped up into the Open section of tournaments ... no longer eligible to play in the Reserve/Amateur  section which was usually under 1800 when I was coming up . So ... I had graduated from being a " big fish in the little pond " to being a " little fish in the big pond " !  I suffered for quite a spell and a " good result" became 50% for me in such events .... I kept studying , playing and losing ... I was scoring consistently 2 to 3 points from 5 games but the winners were scoring either 4.5/5 or  5/5 and once in awhile someone might win with 4/5 but I certainly was never a threat for several years to win an Open section with experts and masters playing and higher rated A players as well .... I felt doomed and wondered if it was smart to have graduated from the little pond ? Eventually I did learn to score better than 50% against my fellow A players and roughly 50% against experts while more like 25-30% against those over 2200 ( masters ) . During this time I did actually win a few games against masters as my own rating was approaching 2000 . Only after I had actually beaten some masters did I start thinking about becoming one myself , if I can beat them ... why not ? It was about this time that I set 2 new goals for my chess : 1 to win the state championship Open section and : 2  to earn the NM title . I did both over the next few years but guess which came first ?  

Sorry to be so argumentative in this topic by the way.

A lot of strong players giving good advice.

In all pursuits, whether chess or sports, there is always a certain amount of deification. We like to believe that people who achieve great things, are heroes. That they are above the hudling masses.

To a large extent that is where the glory lies, to a large extent that is why we pursue such pursuits. Our belief is those that achieve are special. And our climb on the path bestows us with that distinction as well.

Achieving anything is not just purely economical, it is about identity. 

By introducing the idea that it only takes hard work to achieve mastery, takes away the glamor, it makes it gross, laborious; there is no innate magic left. You are just another muggle.

Of course, one may not become a master, or have the pretensions to become one, but at least believing in talent allows us to beileve that there is something more than just technique. That this ability, this bolt of lightning one casts on the chessboard, the brilliant combination, the foresight, are from above, and beyond this mundane world.

The sentiment behind having talent, is that everything cannot be bought, or worked for or owned. You are either born with it or not.

People like to believe in mysterious things, rather than deal with dull reality.

Mysterious things or not, I think you're fooling yourself if you think there's a trivial talent difference between a IM/GM compared to a typical class player. Hard work definitely helps, but it's not going to solve the lack of talent required to play at those rarefied levels.

Thanks Reb for commenting, you have an impressive background in chess, and I often feel most masters have interesting stories to tell how they climbed the ladder to masterlevel!  But to me it is most interesting what masters enjoy doing when away from chess? Looks like you enjoy much of what I feel makes me happy, especially boating!

If you only started playing a year ago, then give it time. Don't expect things to early, et yourself develop as a player and then figure out how good you really are in the way of talent before anything else.

Begone useless troll . 

I'm not sure why he's considered a troll, he actually says important and interesting things sometimes.

I have a clock that's correct every day. Once in the wee hours of the morning, and once in mid-afternoon.

only you BOS could criticize a Master then cling the the thin story- that your about to be a world champion, because you pay attention to one of those silicon chess monsters...

you know the ones Everyone has and everybody uses...  but seemingly Only you are able to understand.

Reb thanks for excellent advice.  whats nice is everybody can get a bit better can't they?  there's hope even for me.

Judging by your blitz rating you are already there so it would be interesting to know how long it took you.  'Not difficult' is a very relative term.  Even U16 prodigies spend several years breaking 2200 and for most 16+'s I've known played tournament level chess for about a decade before breaking 2200.  

I believe time after talent is the greatest factor.  In many cases it may be the greatest factor even over talent.  The opportunity cost of becoming a master is what else could be done in that time.  For a 12 year old, it would maybe learning another sport or getting straight A's in grade 7 instead of the straight A's he likely gets anyway.

At 16 the chess player is two years from university.  So the opportunity costs become much higher.  A degree, maybe two, honours, a girl friend, a job, a career, law school, med school.....  I'm not suggesting that an aspiring master could not do the above, but I suspect they are much more measured with their chess goals.

In a vacuum 2200 sounds great.  It must though cost something.  Judging by the number of players who retire as young masters or titled masters that cost is not insignificant.

As Magnus said during his WC defence:  'Chess is harder than most things."

   Hey, Z...here is a sure-fire way for even an old guy like you to get to master  level before you die of old age:

"The Prodigy Program is an elite chess coaching program designed to create chess prodigies out of youth players and take them, or chess players at any age, to master-level within 5 years."

    In my case, I'm not so sure that I have 5 years.

Of course, you can reach.

Yes. that's a great program. I've taught in a pared down, less expensive program that Chess.com University offered this summer.

I don't think I can make the time commitment necessary to work that program, however, so I must be content with slower progress.

Last time I played the president of Chess.com University OTB, I won.

It was a long game in which I nursed a small advantage for many moves.

The win gave me first place in the tournament and lifted my USCF rating back over 1900.

Harvey, I do not want to hear that talk, get down and give me fifteen, you are good for a least 15 or better, but at our age what good is being a master, I do not even go into town any more except for groceries and beer! lolo  To go in to town to play in a chess tournament, all day and into the night?  But if they held a tourny in Las Vagas casino, I might like that, longs the pretty girl keeps bringing the drinks? What were we taslking about oh ya, wana be a master! this thread is getting long!!!

So it all comes down to this:

Are you gonna do whatever it takes to reach master level ?

Well ?? Are ya, punk ??

I belive talent is by far the most inportant factor...some people go from brand new to masters in a couple years others dont make it in a lifetime of hardwork