I was asked this question (rephrased) on Facebook a few days ago. I felt that the right place to offer my opinion would be here. It will be an answer with a few points.

a) First of all, the answer is probably both yes and no. John and I are nothing special. I had “talent” for about 2200 and John maybe 1800. What I mean by this is that we got to these levels after playing chess for quite a number of years, but essentially just by playing. We did not study much before we hit the ceiling. This comes at different levels. For Luke McShane it came at 2600, while others face it at 1200 or 2100.

b) If you face the ceiling at 1200, I am honestly not so optimistic about you getting the GM title. I like to play music and I spend a lot of my time trying to improve, but I am not under the illusion that I will ever reach a professional level. This does not mean that it does not have tremendous value for me, it does. I love it.

c) The main issue with my musical ability is not that I do not have the talent of Prince or the educational possibilities of Mozart (home schooled by one of the greatest musicians of the time, his father). The real problem is more to do with the ‘10,000 hours rule’, as outlined by Malcolm Gladwell. (I know this is highly controversial, but let’s at least for the moment say that the idea of 10,000 hours of deliberate practice is a good indicator of how difficult it is to learn something). I do not have five years of 2,000 hours to invest. I maybe practice 3-4 hours a week on average, 10+ hours on a good week and only 1 hour of fooling around the last few weeks. Progress is understandably slow.

The question of talent

We have debated this from time to time here on the blog. It seems clear that talent exists and

that we cannot measure it or predict it. A friend of mine has perfect pitch and a great sense of rhythm, but hardly ever practices. I am technically better than him, but those skills will take a very long time to acquire for me, if I ever get there. Clearly we did not start from the same spot.

The same with Carlsen and Karjakin. Karjakin was in the best environment any talented chess player has ever been in. He became the youngest grandmaster in history and has received an immense amount of support. He is fully focused and very ambitious. Carlsen likes to play basketball, computer games and sometimes work on chess. Still there is no doubt that the “Lazy” World Champion will win the match in November unless something extraordinary happens. (I have often questioned that Carlsen is lazy. He was called this in the 60 minutes interview, where he was also filmed up in the London Eye, thinking only about the next day’s game…)

Karjakin is obviously more talented than others. I am more talented than others. But there were also those in my generation in Denmark who were much more talented than me, and for a long time ahead of me. But at some point the work I did was more important.

A serious answer

The combination of talent and work is needed to become good at anything. It is almost (Talent) x (Work) = (Ability). The less talent you have, the more work you will have to do.

In order to become a Grandmaster, you have to invest really a lot of time and effort. You have to learn things that are not coming easy to you. You have to gain experience and so on. There are 1519 Grandmasters in the World. It is a very exclusive club. You have to make big sacrifices to make it – and not everyone will make it.

But there are other titles, like International Master, which is achievable without making it a full time pursuit. I have a number of times been seen to burst out laughing when 2300+ players have told me that they did not have what it took to become IMs. Yes, it requires work, but the level is by no means as high as becoming a GM. And it is still a prestigious title.