Did you know that Fischer had no chess talent?

Don't try to reason with her or point out the obvious to her on this subject. I tried in another thread. It's pointless.

I don't mind if she doesn't agree with me.

So...how are you defining "talent"?

Woodshover, if you're remembering your argument as "reason", then I find that adorable

Ok, so what follows is how I imagine it works.  None of this is based on conversations I've had with kids or scientific studies etc :)

Not sure how I'd define talent exactly... off the top of my head something like,  "the physiological differences in individuals that alter the learning curve for a particular skill or set of skills."

So it's not as simple as listing things like memory and concentration.  I think talented young players conceptualize the board differently nearly right from the start.  E.g. normal conceptualization is to distinguish only between moves that threaten and don't threaten.  I think somehow they conceptualize early what kinds of moves "build" a position.  i.e. there are useful moves that don't directly threaten something.

Also some basic quantitative reasoning (perhaps beyond their years).  Such as with ratios and the difference between two positions.  For example if this were the case the prodigy would reason for themselves right away that when you're ahead it's favorable to make even trades because the ratio (disparity) of material would increase.

I think in this way all their practice is automatically of a higher quality leading to more skill per unit of work spent.  You could certainly argue that it's due to the quality of work -- but I would say an average person woudln't be able to duplicate this quality until after a number of years of learning and playing seriously.  But of course by that time it's too late for the average person.  The prodigy has made better use of it when his or her brain was young and could soak up new knowledge more efficiently.

Dan Heisman is a convenient reference.  I imagine prodigy players nearly instantly have the sort of move selection process as a 1600-1700 USCF player except of course without the knowledge and experience to guide it.  By comparison most new players are thrilled to give a check or attack the queen... now more than ever perhaps it's obviously this is my personal guesswork

That is certainly an excellent argument for why some children 'get it', comparatively, and others don't, comparatively speaking. We call those who do get it, "talented". Of course, it will take much more time and experience to truly separate themselves from others who have spent even more time and effort on the game.

 I believe that "talent" exists as a word to denote the  ability of a person to separate themselves from all others who are in pursuit of successful results. 

But, I am aware of "talent" being evinced through comparing the pool of players in that pursuit. I believe it remains unknown if any child may not be able to be considered talented if all things were equal. Therefore, while one child may be impressive in designing clothes, another child is impressive in playing a particular game. All based upon the other children in comparison.

Talent then, appears to me to be an evaluation of a given person's ability in comparison with other person's abilities. Talent does not exist within the person. It exists as an evaluation by the spectator. 

To all those suggesting 'talent' is the deciding and most important factor in whether success is achieved in any given field, I recommend Malcom Gladwell's 'Outliers'. http://www.gladwell.com/outliers/index.html

I am kinda busy right now so I cant expound his arguments at great length, but he successfuly argues- some might say proves- that innate 'talent' is largely a combination of hard work, luck, legacy, and only a sprinkling of that X-factor people tend to define as talent. I agree at first it seems counter-intuitive but there is OVERWHELMING statistical evidence for this argument.

It seems romantic to assign super-natural abilities to people and raise them up on a pedestal founded upon pure talent, but whether the idea is attractive or not makes not on jot of difference as to whether it is true.

In any case, I would assert that it is far more admirable and impressive for genius level ability to be gained through dedication, sweat, blood and tears; than through some god given aptitude which is merely an accident of birth.

Agreed.

I tend to think people who 'point out the obvious' on discussion forums are missing the entire point- sometimes the obvious is actually not quite so simple, thus why it is being debated; if it were so simple then there would be no need to debate it. Presumption is the mother of all fuck ups.

It's obvious to me even if it's not to you.

i wish i had no chess talent and be compared to Fischer. 

But if these people who don't believe in talent were right there would be Fischer level players everywhere, so nobody would look twice at you being up there with Fischer.

But people have to have talent though. Look at GM Carlsen. He has a lot of talent. 

I know. That's the point I was trying to make with this thread.

I know. I was agreeing with you. 

I'd say to be a very sucessful at anything you need innate ability and a temperament which gives the interest and motivation to work hard.

Without interest, motivation and hard work you will not get far on innate talent alone.

Also you need opportunities to develp that talent from a young age... A combination of factors surely?

There are those individuals who are "gifted" and those who are not. If one is not "gifted" one can spend and entire lifetime composing music, playing chess, or even playing basketball and one will never be mistaken for Mozart, Bobby Fischer, or Michael Jordan. NEVER! >:[

If you put your heart and sole into something plus prepare and have some fun you should do well in that subject/sport. 

But what of those who can excel without having to work at it much at all?

No talent? I think I'm in twilight zone.