Do folks generally still believe that the "masters" are/were born great, rather than being born with an advantage of some sort (whether by nature or environment) and then leveraging that to achieve mastery of some craft?

Great point.

Vonnegut comes to mind in literature. In one of his novels, he even grades his other works A-F based on how good he thinks they were. His grades seem remarkably accurate, too, given my subjectivity as a reader, and his bias as the author.

Seems like the passage of time has a role in accentuating the genius of artists

Ok that's fair, I play it myself. Though it's also pretty weird in its middle section.

I was obsessed with Chopin for a while then went off his music for many years. I have had a resurgence in my interest in his music. Probably due to the Chopin competition rekindled it alongside with finally getting hold of a piano again.

The etudes are timeless

Maybe unintentionally, the word ‘little’ is quite dismissive. Perhaps you’re thinking of one of the three very minor Preludes which no one plays and not included in the 24 Preludes Opus 28.

If you do mean something like the 4th Prelude in E Minor for instance, should it be prefaced with a trigger warning that ‘you're about to hear music that is - effusively sad or full of self-pity; extremely sentimental or 'tearful; easily moved to tears; exciting to tears; excessively sentimental; weak and silly? (American Heritage Dictionary definition of maudlin).

Written much later, would you regard Rachmaninov's Vocalise (1915) or Barber's Adagio (1936) as 'maudlin' not to mention a vast number of other compositions that explore the kind of intensity of feeling that is expressed in the 4th Chopin Prelude. Given that the pianist Alfred Brendel considers ‘Chopin’s Preludes as the most glorious achievement in piano music after Beethoven and Schubert’ you might wonder why he takes a somewhat view from you. Could you be missing something?