Or can any individual become successful in chess?

No. Got nothing to do with how smart you are. It does require some unique set of skills to advance to expert though. But those skills aren't related to one's intelligence.

"any" is far too broad a term.

its like Einsteins theory of relativity.  its not hard to understand for anyone who is willing to... think! 

Is Chess a Smart Person's Game?

No.

No.

I think it's something that can show your intelligence, but so can many other things.

No, It's mostly popular among the mentally disabled with an I.Q. below 80.

Great chess players can be stupid people.

Brilliant people can be terrible chess players.  

CHESS IS A POND WERE BOTH ELEPHANTS AND FLEES BATH

CHESS IS A POND WERE BOTH ELEPHANTS AND FLEES BATH

Your opinion is irrelevant on any chess topic, anyone who claims to be a GM when they clearly are not is not only delusional but weird.  

To recap; chess is a pond, where both elephants and fleas bathe 

Zod is a super-GM. Once he beat Carlsen giving him Queen odds.

mike_tal wrote:

To recap; chess is a pond, where both elephants and fleas bathe

It is sad when a Latvian is giving an American an English spelling lesson.

no, it is not a smart persons game, many idiots play chess. Certainly not a game dumb people excell at though

If chess isn't, what is a "smart person's game"?

To be mediocre no but to be good I'd say yes. To be good you have to have good logic and a keen eye. I cant think of an idiot Ive met that has good logic.

In music, there is a common analogous question as to whether a specific person could ever reach the heights of their art, especially in being a rock star on guitar, or a lead singer. I'm convinced the answer is clear by now: skill is ultimately limited by each of our inborn abilities, but the good news is that the vast majority of people can reach at least close to the heights of any field. This is also true in writing fiction by the way, according to Stephen King. It is only the extreme limits of a field that will never be attainable by the average person, which in answer to your question means that world class level chess is probably unobtainable by the majority of the population, but certainly master level can be achieved by most of us.

----------

(p. 141)
There are no bad dogs, according to the title of a popular
training manual, but don't tell that to the parent of a child
mauled by a pit bull or a rottweiler; he or she is apt to bust
your beak for you. And no matter how much I want to
encourage the man or woman trying for the first time to
write seriously, I can't lie and say there are no bad writers.
Sorry, but there are lots of bad writers. Some are on-staff at
your local newspaper, usually reviewing little-theater pro-
ductions or pontificating about the local sports teams. Some
have scribbled their way to homes in the Caribbean, leaving a
trail of pulsing adverbs, wooden characters, and vile passive-
voice constructions behind them. Others hold for that open-
mike poetry slams, wearing black turtlenecks and wrinkled
khaki pants; they spout doggerel about "my angry lesbian
breasts" and "the tilted alley where I cried my mother's
name."
   Writers form themselves into the pyramid we see in all
areas of human talent and human creativity. At the bottom
are the bad ones. Above them is a group which is slightly
smaller but still large and welcoming; these are the compe-
tent writers. They may also be found on the staff of your local
newspaper, on the racks at your local bookstore, and at
(p. 142)
poetry readings on Open Mike Night. These are folks who
somehow understand that although a lesbian may be angry,
her breasts will remain breasts.
   The next level is much smaller. These are the really good
writers. Above them--above almost all of us--are the
Shakespeares, the Faulkners, the Yeatses, Shaws, and Eudora
Weltys. They are geniuses, divine accidents, gifted in a way
which is beyond our ability to understand, let alone attain.
Shit, most geniuses aren't able to understand themselves,
and many of them lead miserable lives, realizing (at least on
some level) that they are nothing but fortunate freaks, the
intellectual version of runaway models who just happen to be
born with the right cheekbones and with breasts which fit
the image of an age.

King, Stephen. 2000. On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft. New York, NY: Scribner.

only if you are right-brained.

how conveniently vague.

to be "good". what does this mean? FM IM GM?

certainly simply getting a 2000-2500 internet bullet/blitz no increment rating isn't the definition of "good". too easy.

I guess we could just sit here and label people we don't like as "mediocre" and people we do as "good" regardless of anything and without specifically defining these terms.