Can Someone become strong Grandmaster Without Coach

Since there is lots of free information available on internet,  lot's of chess book pdf available, you tube. Videos too, So my question is can someone like me become strong grandmaster without coach. 

If your answer is yes then How can I become strong grandmaster ? 

Res ipsa loquitor, the thing speaks for itself.

Vishy Anand became a World Champion without coach.

It is my honest opinion that Coach is not sine qua non to become a strong grandmaster.

#1

"there is lots of free information available on internet,  lot's of chess book pdf available"
++ Yes, that is true.

"you tube. Videos too"
++ That is no help. Videos are passive learning and that is not effective.
Study a book actively with 2 chess sets: one for the main line and one for variations.
Cover up the book move and comments and ask yourself what would you play and why.
Then look at the book move and comments. Were you right? Why?
A book is the equivalent of 200 videos of 1 hour each.
A book authored by a world champion costs you $20 and equals of 200 h of top coaching.

"can someone like me become strong grandmaster without coach" ++ Yes, you can.

"How can I become strong grandmaster?"
++ By 8 years of hard work. Play games and analyse lost games, Study of grandmaster games.

Yes. I mean I bet most top players can point to other people who were influential to them and helped them learn... But did they all pay for formal coaching, no I'm sure they didn't. From what I remember of petrosian's history I dont think he had a coach, not in the formal paid-for sense of coach anyway. Much of his early development was from reading books solo, often without a board I think.

#4
"Much of his early development was from reading books solo"
++ That is right. Petrosian named "My System" and "Chess Praxis" by Nimzovich.

Tygxc yep those names ring a bell, I couldn't remember them at the time.

Yes you "can", but be prepared to invest a lot of money and time into something you likely to not even get.

If you only want to use free resources, it is a pipe dream.

People ask questions like this and have no idea of the actual work you’ll have to put in. Yes, you technically could become a GM, but you could also shove a soccer ball into your mouth. Impressive, takes a lot of practice and work, but kinda pointless. You’ll have to get rid of the idea that chess is a hobby, and grind like crazy. And the chances are, you’ll probably have to get a side job to make enough money to support yourself, too.

Instead of asking if you can become a "strong grandmaster" without a coach - ask yourself if you can become a master without a coach (2200 FIDE).

That's the first goal you should strive for, if you want to be titled.

One step at a time.

I don't think it is possible. Even bobby fisher had a teacher. You should be a prodigy. 

Those are two very different questions.  The answer to the first one is a verify qualified "yes" with the qualification being that it will require a lot of hard work and a lot of talent.

The answer to the second one is that it is highly unlikely that any specific average 1900 can become a strong GM with or without a coach. (granted, only a very small percentage of 1900s think of themselves as average).

A lottery example is generally easy to understand.  It is quite possible that a winning lottery ticket might be the only one that a person bought for that lottery (it has happened).  But it is very unlikely that any specific person will win a lottery even if they are buying lots of tickets. (and the general case is that somebody buying up all lottery combinations is unlikely to make a profit due to the likelihood of multiple winners, taxes, and either the often lower lump sum pay-outs or the interest rates on the loans taken to buy tickets/lost opportunity of tying up money if loans weren't needed).

yes but it will take more time without a coach because u have to figure out ur own mistakes which is not that easy ..maybe like 15 to 20 years ...thats my guess..

I agree with the fact that videos are passive learning, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re bad. They’re good at the 800-2000 range, but if you want to get better, you’re going to need to do some hands-on learning for yourself.

They are passive learning, but that isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

Are people here basing their statements on verifiable information or are these just opinions e.g. "videos are good in the 800-2000 range". How are these numbers arrived at?

Such numbers are sometimes arrived at proctologically.

agree

Just my personal opinion, of course. There’s no way I could know that for sure, and I’m certainly nowhere close to 2000, so I can’t speak for them. But from the way tygxc speaks, I assume that YouTube isn’t very helpful, and from personal experience, YouTube videos are extremely helpful from 800-1600 (give or take 400 points to get to 2000)

I would say up to around 1300 is when I stopped using videos as my main source of information. I would still use them from time to time, usually to get a kickstart overview of a new opening I wanted to learn/counter, but as for actual chess playing skill, nearly none of it was from videos.