Which Elite Chess Player of All Time Has the Most Natural Talent?

  Look, apparently you, unlike most chess observers, seem to think Anand is not particularly talented. We all have our opinions so that's fine. I believe it was the case that Anand opted out of the match with Kasparov in 2000 though I recall he was offered it first and refused because of his desire not get involved in continuing chess politics. Chess Oscars are also a measure of chess prowess and in the years between 1998 and 2007, Anand won it 6 times and Kramnik twice. But there's no point in arguing about it. As I said, we all have our opinions and we can just agree to disagree.

for sure capablanca ! capablanca could beat the best players of his country when he started to play !

i dont think he is not talented - i am perplexed that despite being so, he had to wait till 35ish to win the WC, while kramnik did it at 24ish. so i asked what could be the explaination. is he a late bloomer - did the kasparov match set him back confidence wise for 10 years? if you take kasparov as the reference, then kramnik is again streets ahead. so depending on which yardstick you choose, anand is the lightning kid or had to slog to get the wc, unlike kramnik who did it in style.

I would concede without hesidation that anand's speed is second to very few.

now I seriously wonder how you got to 1500+

 I think I explained that he came very close in 1998 when he lost to a rested Karpov in a playoff after going +10 in the 'Candidates' and then he opted out in 2000. He perhaps could have had it earlier, possibly 2000. In any event, he doesn't need me to defend his chess abilities ;> As Natalia Pogonina said, he's very modest and doesn't go around belittling everyone else and blowing his own horn and perhaps that's why people underestimate what an incredible chess talent he is. He may also have had a thing about Kasparov. As Kramnik has said recently, 'Vishy was never really weaker than Kasparov [over the board] but he just had this thing about playing him' and perhaps that was due to  the experience of 1995.

GuavaberryGuy -

Point taken - and assuming you are a very hard worker in your endeavors - don't you find true and real beauty in someone who is naturally awesome at something ? Don't feel disgusted....He was a brute force obsessionist, is not someone to uphold. Now Yasser, has an incredibly good life because he has the intelligence to have stopped to smell the roses. Will he be saying on his deathbed....gee, i wish i'd spent more time hunkered over the board ?

what weird coincidence, just yesterday i read on amazon how someone hates the bg5 line against the gruenfeld and what happens today i see a game of seirawan beating kasparov with that line.

I am split between choosing Mir Sultan Khan and Jose Raoul Capablanca as the ones with most natural chess talent. Also worthy of consideration is Alexandre Deschappelles of France.

1Fischer 2Capablanca 3Morphy

that would be my choice too...

Rashid Nehzmedinov

The topic  being "natural" talent, my vote would go to Capablanca. It was said he rarely studied or prepared for a challenge. Hard to judge Fischers natural ability, from a very early age he did nothing BUT study and play chess. He forged his ability through hard work and determination. In the end it cost him his sanity.

Spiritbro first it didnt cost fischers sanity, he stayed sane till he died, studying just improved his natural talent.

I still say Fischer had the most

Bobby Fischer was a paranoid schizophrenic. He thought the whole world was out to get him. He thought the Russians were listening to his thoughts through the fillings in his teeth. He had zero social skills. Never had a real relationship with anyone except his douting mother. From grade school on he learned ONE skill. Chess. And yes, it cost him his sanity. He got lost in the board. The infinite possibility swallowed him up. He's not the first chess master to suffer such a fate and he won't be the last. He was an awesome player because he cared and studied only one thing. But he was a failure at life. Had he never taken up chess he likely would have had a much more successful existence. But the chess world would have been poorer... I hope he has found the peace he never found here....

Studying one avenue from such an early age and dedicating himself to that single pursuit doesn't equate to "natural" talent. He of course HAD talent and ability or all the study would have gone for naught. But to me, and this is just my opinion,  natural ability isn't the product of studying every waking moment. Capablanca for instance, is said to have studied the game some, but hardly every waking moment. He took to the game naturally....

Yup. Bob and his ma were real pals.

Armchair psychology! My favorite. Christ! I'm agreeing with tets' now.

@Spirtibro, I agree with you that Capablanca might have been the greatest natural talent ever. He was quite lazy and did not calculate too much during his games. He was simply able to evaluate a position without looking at possible variations - this is why his wins look so simple and efortless.

It is really hard to judge the talent of Fischer, Kasparov or Rubinstein who were titans of work. Players who worked little and achieved outstanding results are much easier to be considered talented.

Besides Capablanca, I would also name Tal and Karpov. Both were quite lazy but became world champions and chess legends. Tal had natural tactical vision and Karpov was similar to Capa with his understanding of positions. He purposedly avoided complications in favour of plan and converting microscopic advantage.

Yet I cannot agree Fischer could be more successful if he did not devote his life to chess. He loved winning and crushing his opponents, what else could give him as much satistaction as chess?

Houdini 3. No one else beats my ask so naturally badly.

Try Stockfish 4. It plays more natural and easier to understand chess. And it can beat H3 badly 

Since when? And prove please because until some months ago Houdini3 was the best. But I will se if I download and test it myself anyway.

"Yet I cannot agree Fischer could be more successful if he did not devote his life to chess. He loved winning and crushing his opponents, what else could give him as much satistaction as chess?"

How much happiness did he gain by achieving his goal of being world champion? He completely feel apart almost immediately. His was one of the shortest reigns as WC. Had he went into business, or become a teacher might he have lead a fuller life? Gotten married? Had children? Of course that's supposition. His mental illness may have presented in any case.... but one has to wonder.... And no I'm not trying to play armchair psycologist, I've just read a lot about the man. He was THE chess hero when I was a kid. I don't think it can be disputed that his singlemindedness concerning chess, stunted his social life and his ability to connect with others. Every interview of those that "knew" him all agree. Chess was his one and only interest to the exclusion of everything and everyone else. He got lost in the game. That seems to be the concensus of every article and every interview about the man. At least the one's I've seen.