Are some people just naturally bad at chess?

So I've been playing for about 3 months and my rating is stuck at 1300, according to the thing, this is in the 75% percentile. However, I've seen people with over 10 times the amount of games I've played, with over 1000 lessons done on the site with premium accounts who are a couple hundred rating points below me. Do you guys think some people are naturally bad, or is it possible to get to any rating with enough dedication?

I've seen people who have played for 20 years without breaking 1200. Then again, not everybody who plays chess cares about the game. For some, it's just an idle pass-time.

True, that makes sense. I've always been playing to get better, but I could see how someone who just plays for leisure wouldn't care too much about improving rather than enjoying the game.

Yes some people are just not as good. I have the same number of games as you and cannot break  700. I don’t study or do many lessons though; perhaps I should. My goal is 1000. It’s tough to improve in 10 minute games. 

Also, I’m pretty sure chess.com employs an army of slump buster bots with thousands of games and no visible improvement in their rating over the years. 

Well its not just strategy and memorizing positions, its also IQ and analyzing your opponent. I have been lucky in my last two games making  my opponent see ghosts, cause it's a 3/2 blitz but I know I need to study openings because my aggressive style works against me when there is more time.

But I played a lot in high school and helped teach the after school class, so I know my rating was closer to 1500-1700 back then, and that's my goal. I feel like I was more alert back then (10 years ago) but I understand strategy now a bit differently  . 

If you know how the pieces move, youre better than 7 billion people.

Yes, there is a limit for everyone's ability. Perhaps it would be better to say some people are better or naturally good? Not everyone can run a mile in under a minute no matter how hard they train; not everyone will excel in advanced mathematics no matter how much they study; and not everyone will reach 1400, 1500 or beyond no matter how much they play and study. That's just life . . .

Who can run a mile in under a minute?

I think he's right. Not everyone.

Wouldnt that be "not anyone"?

u can hit 1300 in 3months,to me that's not even a rating.. the drama is goin from 1600 to 1800...iv played chess for over 20years and my rating was about 1800+ on Fide at peak.i hit my 1800 in 1.5yrs..bt im rated 1300+ on chess cos its a past time now

It may just depend on whether or not you've played chess elsewhere. When i made my account i selected beginner, all i had was a knowledge of how the pieces moved, yet i went all the way to 1115 in Blitz without losing a single game, i then got moved up a rating bracket playing more experienced players and fell all the way to 600. I got to about 900 on blitz and then started doing tournament play. So now when i play on chess.com i always play blitz or four person and just play gambits, fun openings and things i'd like to try just for fun. I play seriously at tournaments but chess.com is just fro having fun while learning. I do play seriously against bots sometimes.

Even if Usain Bolt was able to keep up his maximum speed for a full minute, he wouldn't get close to running a full mile.

I don't know. It's been  along time since English class. "Not everyone can run a mile in under a minute no matter how hard they train."   "Not anyone can run a mile in under a minute no matter how hard they train." I think it's the first one, but I dont know. 

Considering you would have to run 60MPH, to run a mile in 1 minute.  Im gonna guess it doesnt really mater.

As you can see, I have limited ability with written expression, or perhaps attention to detail? A 4 minute mile was my intent. Until 1954, no one thought this could be done. Then Roger Bannister did it. Top athletes do so routinely now, but just the top few. Now a I minute mile would be something . . .

Surprisingly, this is a controversial question. I think many agree that there is something that one might call chess-talent, making it somewhat easier for some to learn chess stuff. I think just about everyone agrees that one's chess-improvement is greatly influenced by how much one studies, how one studies, and how one plays. I am not aware of any experiments to explore the limits of chess dedicatiom.