Can you become really a master through exercise?

Can you become really a master through exercise?

Why there so many players on Chess.com who have played thousands of games and still have a rating around 1200 or even lower?

I think excercise is relative not an absolute. Some people become masters after little excercise (see Capablanca) others after a lot of excercise (see Alekhine that became champion after studying a lot the style of Capablanca and profitting of the self confidence of the cuban that didn't take seriously the challenge. But Capablanca learned the lesson and was ready for the return match. But Alekhine was very able to refute the revenge. I've never accepted the behaviour of Alekhine). So for me one only thing is necessary to become a master: to capture the essence of the game. Something misteryous must happen in your mind and soul so that you capture the essence of the game. If you get that you get everything. After that excercise is useful to remain fresh

I like that dance

Bobby Fischer said the memorization of games is the key point for successful chess!?

"... In a recently published issue of the journal 'Intelligence' there were numerous studies, analysis, and pieces on the 10,000hr rule. In particular, one study by David Hambrick and colleagues entitled “Deliberate practice: Is that all it takes to become an expert”, sought out to 'test Ericsson’s claim that "individual differences in ultimate performance can largely be accounted for by differential amounts of past and current levels of practice.' As a refresher, Ericsson was the original researcher who developed and then publicized the concepts, which then took off with Gladwell’s Outliers, Geoffrey Colvin’s Talent is Overrated, Daniel Coyle’s The Talent Code, and numerous others who jumped on the bandwagon with their own spin.
In there research Hambrick reanalyzed 12 studies looking at expert performance in chess and music. Similar to Ericsson’s original work, they simply looked at hours of deliberate practice for each and compared it to performance levels along their development. In the chess studies, they found that deliberate practice explained 34% of the variance in performance, and therefore 66% unexplained. Looking at the individual numbers is even more staggering. There were some people who had over 20,000 hours of deliberate practice yet never went beyond Intermediate, the lowest of the three levels (intermediate, expert, and master). Perhaps most striking, was the range of “masters” was 832 hours to 24,284hrs to reach mastery.
When looking at Music, the results were very similar. 29.9% of the variance in performance was explained by amount of deliberate practice.
The whole study is worth a read as it delves into intelligence, personality, and other factors related to reaching 'expertise.' However, the take away to me is simply common sense. Does practice make you better? Of course it does, but it isn’t the be all end all. And you know what, neither is genetics. ..."
http://www.scienceofrunning.com/2014/03/why-gladwells-10000-rule-is-just-plain.html

That's not how it works. You don't become a master just by reading chess books.

Becoming a master isn't that hard. All it takes is this:

- Start early. Preferably before the age of 10, better earlier.

- Work hard on improving. Qualitatively and Quantitatively.

- Be talented.

- Love the game enough to stay motivated.

Most people who don't become masters lack one or more of these points.

That was very helpful, thank you KindaSpongey.

In the OP's comment, was that a mating pattern, by chance?  Combination of tactics in the offing, a pin followed by a skewer perhaps?

Because they have no plans of having a higher rating. They are happy with 1200 or below 1200.

 @kindaspongey  I think the conclusion I get from your informative posting is that one person's 10,000 hours can be much different from another's 10,000 hours -- both in focus and efficiency.  I think it comes down to the percentage of active learning vs passive learning in those hours of studying. 

Yes.

https://www.chess.com/article/view/how-to-study-master-chess-games

I thought GM Timur Gareev had that record now. Not sure who had it before him. Good blindfold play requires memory, visualization and good calculation too. Along with other things, if you also want to win most of your games.

What do you define as exercise honey? Some noobie lifting 5 pounds will not gain strenght unless he starts lifting higher weights gradually, same with chess. Playing  blitz chess games online is like lifting dorito bags at the gym it does nothing for improvement.

KIM KARDASHIAN OUT.

Possibly of interest:

https://www.chess.com/article/view/is-speed-chess-good-for-you
What It Takes to Become a Chess Master by Andrew Soltis
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708093409/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review857.pdf
100 Chess Master Trade Secrets by Andrew Soltis
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708094523/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review916.pdf
Reaching the Top?! by Peter Kurzdorfer
http://www.thechessmind.net/blog/2015/11/16/book-notice-kurzdorfers-reaching-the-top.html
http://www.jeremysilman.com/shop/pc/Reaching-the-Top-77p3905.htm
https://www.chess.com/article/view/don-t-worry-about-your-rating
https://www.chess.com/article/view/am-i-too-old-for-chess

Chess masters are born, guys...!!

Lot of intelligent people that have studied chess for years and can't break 1800 or even less. 

^ If not studying through books, what is it then?

You mean getting the pieces out on a physical board and moving them around? Does moving pieces via mouse clicks on  2D board count as studying also? (hope so)