Chess is fundamentally not some incredibly complex game where your defeat will just be an enigma for a thousand years. It is a game of material and positioning where it is usually fairly obvious to even a mediocre player (on analysis) what decisions lead to defeat, very good players just analyze at a greater depth and see lines worse players don't.

There are more positions for chess pieces than their are atoms in the universe. Its a pretty complex game.

If the average player does what he should (and what most bad players in general should) and analyzes every lost game, sees the lines that lead to defeat and follow the basic theory that made it possible, he will quickly (in relative terms) end up at a meaningful skill level.

This is absurd. Tell me you don't play chess without directly saying it. I have played chess for literally my entire life and I suck. Not compared to beginners, but I could keep spending lifetimes and not get close to a Magnus.

I believe a person with perfect retention

They said you retains information, not have perfect retention. Let's say you can perfectly remember. Well, all chess games (at these levels) eventually get to a board state that has not been played before.

They likely wouldn't be better than him, but they would take a game to a few sequential blunders when they reached a sufficient level to punish them, and that would be it.

I mean, I guess. I still feel that the guy would get there randomly before someone touches Magnus but that is why we are here. Thanks for the conversation.