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

In my view, it's very difficult to gauge Morphy's talent. Clearly his understanding of the game was far superior to his contemporaries, but we're talking of the (almost pre-)dawn of modern chess. He played opponents who considered it almost cowardly to decline sacrifices.

Another possibility arises. Player B might have enormous natural talent, conceivably even the most natural talent of all time (as the question has been framed by the OP), yet live in an era in which all very talented players study with the best tutors and mentors, play in international tournaments against strong competition and from childhood, study intensively, have the latest in computer software, etc. etc. Maybe his parents even move him to Europe to enjoy the advantages it offers for his chess career.... 

In that case, how do we know whether Player B's rise to the top is due more to study, practice and cultivation, or to raw natural talent?  

Certainly Player B might defeat a more naturally talented but less intensively cultivated player. And Player B might be dominated by a less naturally talented player who had better tutors, advisors, study habits, and other advantages. 

But if everyone in the field has fairly equal advantages on the cultivation side, the player with prodigiously greater talent would be expected to dominate. 

Caruana was interviewed after defeating Carlsen, and talked about how well he had studied and memorized the opening, and how deeply. And he said that there was no way anyone was going to be able to navigate through that variation well or competitively over the board. 

Carlsen may have more native or natural talent, but he doesn't study and cultivate it as much as some others (though he still studies and works and obsesses quite a bit). For the amount of work he puts in, one would expect him to be more dominant if his natural talent were much greater than the competition's. The fact that he is only marginally dominant suggests that his natural talent isn't too far removed from the competition's.

The compass needle still points to Morphy from all the evidence and considerations so far. 

”For the amount of work he puts in, one would expect him to be more dominant”

So what amount of work does he put in compared to the other top players, and how dominant would you expect him to be? I don’t think anyone knows how much he and other top players work, but Kasparov considered Carlsen lazy and the latter sometimes talked about how computer illitterate he was as a young player. I think people will realise how exceptional Carlsen is first after he loses the title. He is still only 27 and has been clear #1 for 7 years, and is the best player in all formats, classical, rapid, blitz and Chess960. In blitz with around 100 Elo down to #2. Classical chess today isn’t like in Morphy’s days, and it isn’t easy to beat well prepared opponents that are playing to get a draw. That doesn’t have to be connected to a comparative lack of talent...

CAPABLANCA

After being crushed by Morphy, Anderssen (who had crushed Staunton, and was the number one player in the world, and also had a great reputation for his honesty and objectivity) said Morphy was probably the strongest player who ever played the game. This despite Morphy's being ill and too weak even to sit up in bed. And despite vastly less time and experience with chess, less training and preparation, and having spent the previous seven years studying other subjects and only occasionally playing chess with much weaker recreational players (as opposed to Anderssen's quite different chess world access and advantages), and not even taking chess particularly seriously nor devoting much of his life to it, basically being on break after finishing law studies, and being talked into going out and playing some chess....

It all points to extraordinary levels of natural talent. Something on the order of a 1000-year flood. 

How it compares with Capablanca's and Carlsen's levels of natural talent....

They obviously have extremely high levels of natural talent; but the dominance-to-preparation ratio (which seems indicative of natural talent) is considerably higher with Morphy. 

Good points about Carlsen. It does seem that he has more natural ability than any living player, and any player going back at least to Fischer, perhaps back to Capablanca. 

Between Capablanca and Carlsen...interesting question. Hard to say. 

Morphy just seems to stand alone.

The way the question is framed (which player "has" the most natural talent) presupposes or suggests natural talent to be (1) a personal possession, and (2) something like a reservoir that can be large or small. The OP probably didn't think about this much, and was probably wording the question more or less casually. Still, it gets interesting if you go into these issues more thoroughly.

What if talent is not something quite like that? 

I'm thinking of Fischer. Fischer, it seems to me, tapped into something, through incredible determination, drive, single-mindedness, dedication, total immersion, and passion. At his peak he was doing astonishing things.

He seems to have drilled into a new level energy and genius.

That sort of thing can be viewed not as a personal possession so much as a potential mode of being and acting that is accessible to human beings.... 

(In some cases such things might be accessed more "naturally," in some cases more through work, discipline, right cultivation or right approach.)

Something more along the lines of David Bohm's use of the term "infinite potential."

I would suggest that they've not devoted considerably less effort than their peers. They most definitely have invested a lot of effort, but in the specific case of Magnus Carlsen, it may be less evident because he plays 'non-critical' (I'm using the term advisedly) opening lines. He wants to reach a playable middle-game, while avoiding being caught out in long computer preparation. Thus it may appear that he doesn't work as hard on his chess, but it would surprise me enormously if he too hasn't studied also those critical lines in considerable detail and depth, although he's decided to focus more of his energy on other aspects of the game. Furthermore, being physically fit, and coming fresh and well-rested to the board is just as important as coming well-prepared.

Morphy or Capablanca.

Anybody mention Sammy Reshevsky yet?

Morphy or Capablanca.

Anybody mention Sammy Reshevsky yet?

Although I'm a big Lasker fan (and I've already given him my vote here), there's a lot to be said for Boris Spassky. There's a wonderful fluent quality to his best games.

SeniorPatzer: Yes, I think Reshevsky has been mentioned.

Morphy

Reshevsky

Fischer

Paul Morphy is who came to my mind first.

Morphy doesn't seem logical to me. Considering the relatively small player pool back then it's statistically unlikely.

The gap Fischer, Kasparov or Carlsen had over contempories is as impressive to me considering the vastly greater competition, both in quality and quantity of players. 

Morphy was one of the more studied players of his time also.

My instinct is it's possible a player like Giri may be more talented than Morphy.

Morphy had a deep theoretical knowledge for his time. And strong players to face in America. He also read any book he could get his hands on. (Hopefully Batgirl can correct me if I'm wrong).

Thank you for including Reshevsky. He had an awesome natural talent for chess and is too often overlooked in discussions of great players. His book “Reshevsky’s Best Games of Chess” is the most instructive game collection I’ve come across.

I agree about Morozevich. Wondering if Planinc shouldn’t be mentioned in the same breath?

Morphy went to a small college in Alabama. I'm fairly certain it was not the major chess hub of its day in the United States. In fact, the level of players available to Morphy there was probably extremely low. Many of his competitors for the US Championship had significant advantages. Ditto for those in Europe. 

Strong players occasionally passed through New Orleans when Morphy was there; but again, he was disadvantaged relative to many other players, both in the US and in Europe. He had virtually no one even close to his level. 

The statistical argument can't exclude Morphy at all. 

The "quality" of play today may be higher in one sense. But there is a lot of memorization going on. See Fischer's comments on this. And it has only gotten worse since the time he began observing it. Much worse. 

So the level of natural talent (as opposed to cultivated skill) may actually have been higher in Morphy's day. And in that sense the quality of play that he faced when playing Anderssen and other world-class players was not particularly low, to put it mildly. Anderssen, even without catching up on contemporary openings and theory, would probably astonish anyone here who tried to play him in a match. 

I really don't think Morphy had many books. Apparently, those he did read, he typically went through quickly and then gave away. He did not study them much. 

To ignore the assessments of Morphy by Fischer, Capablanca, Kasparov, Kramnik (auto-correct tried to change it to "Jeannie" -- go figure), Anderssen and other world champions is to do a disservice to truth. 

The same way I wouldn't be surprised if Osafa Powell is more talented than Jesse Owens. It's the way these things work.

I remember seeing something that said Wesley So did not have a coach until he was ~2500, which I think is incredibly impressive. He may have had to put in work to get to 2500, but still, not having a coach and getting that far is impressive imo