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

If I could meet any player in History it would be Tal.  He was probably the most interesting player who did not end up insane.

Tal was probably the most extra-ordinary of all chess magicians. Sick from birth with various inner organs missing and a claw hand, he set the world of chess on fire in 58-62. A whirlwind of beautiful tactics swirling around in his head...not the most precise calculator, but with boundless imagination and absolutely no fear. In many ways he was the anti-pode of Fischer the ice-man who constantly strove for order and clarity -a gracious warrior of chaos and fire, with no hate or envy in his heart.

I got this info from a what appeared to be a reputable web page. I could check with the Elias Sports Bureau to see it is indeed factual.

While certainly Rogers Hornsby was hitting at a blistering pace during this era, it should be noted that before the Babe's alcohol use had caught up to him, he was also a really good pitcher. He would have likely been a H.O.F. at that position, had he continued down that path. His awesome hitting skills commanded that he be in the line up daily.

As a former pitcher, I believe it gave him a leg up over most hitters and the pitchers he was facing. He would know ahead of time how to better anticipate their pitch choices via their throwing motions, stealing the signs from the catchers and making choices with the bat that would likely get him hits, even if not homers.

This is because, he would have better been able to use the type of pitch against the picher. In other words, going with the pitch for easier hits, than simply trying to muscle the ball over the fence each time.

In my personal opinion, it's because I believe everyone has the capacity for hard work.  Some people are just lazy and don't exercise it.  To my mind, working hard is a virtue, which is superior to a talent (but still not what is technically being asked by this forum).

Has anyone mentioned Bronstein? Talent-wise he was a dominating force from the 1940's all the way up to the 1960's.

Plus, he was always pushing the boundaries, unlike Botvinnik who was extremely conservative with his chess.

houdini ... that bastard knows chess from the time he was born. and rybka 

paul morphy 

Here's somthing I've been wondering for my whole chess career: WTH is "talent"? After all, we are all of the same race and generally, most grandmasters, although I bet they have an above avg IQ, aren't supergeniuses.

All of the above.

And Morphy was fluent in Spanish and French. He could also speak German as far as I can recall.

The man's ability at Chess, Law and Linguistics suggest real genius

I going to throw in one name that is not officially recognized, but should be none-the-less honored: Jude Acers. He plays chess for the love of the game.

Officallyz??: (by timeline)  Paul Morphy,  Jose Raul Capablanca, Alexander Alekhine, Robert James Fischer

Paul Morphy was great for his time, but he is not the greatest of all time.

Imagine Steinits in his prime, with his solid defensive skills, in a match with Morphy. Morphy would be forced to resign, since his cheap tricks would cease to work.

Interestingly enough I am going to have to say Tal probably had the most natural talent. He knew how to play the game and was able to visualize beautiful tactical attacks from nearly any point in the game. When people played him they never knew what to expect- he was a man of many tricks and a towering amount of talent. If you look through his games (in his book) you can easily see this talent displayed and understand what I mean.

The most natural chess talent was probably Jose capablanca...

When certain players found refutations to his shocking moves, he ceased to have any success.

Just look at his record against Korchnoi and Fischer.

Botvinnik crushed him in their second match, because the parlor tricks no longer had any effect.

Plus, Nezhmetdinov was Tal's superior in many ways. 

Yasser is, by far, the most talented and least appreciated chessplayer still alive today. Here is a person who rarely took time to study. Yet, for his time, the 80's and 90's, dominated by a monomaniac, he showed time after time brilliancies. And I commend talent over megalomanism all day long. 

Why do you appreciate talent over study? The only way to be any good at anything is to work hard at it. Your laurels can only get you so far, and people need to reach for the sky by working at things, not have things handed to them by genetics. And while I do think yasser was a good player, I hate to say it, but Garry Kasparov had FAR more talent, and he worked harder at the game than any before him. Garry was an incredible player, I can't feel anything but disgust for those who don't think this is the case.

@ Yereslov

Even your hero Botnnivik disagrees with your opinion. In truth, Tal based all of his play on a solid foundation and knowledge of the endgame. Tal rarely played the endgame because he rarely needed to. He knew where to look for romantic chess and the only reason he was so fervent about sacrifice was because he enjoyed it so damn much. "If Tal had learned to program himself properly he would have been unbeatable." And indeed, he holds the first and second records to this day for the longest unbeatable streaks. In addition, if you look at the games of second world championship match, Botnivik played into all the lines that he had studied to a tee. He knew what Tal was going to play because Tal didn't prepare right, that's all. Finally his sacrifices weren't "parlor tricks", I know you're going to call me some names so I'm warning you in advance, ad hominem attacks are off the table, address my points, nothing else.

TAL TAL TAL can i repeat that in case you missed it TAL TAL TAL now you all know the chorus raise your voice and sing TAL TAL TAL TAL TAL TAL TAL TAL 

george which song sheet are you using please sing like us all but in case you forgot the words TAL TAL TAL TAL TAL TAL TAL TAL TAL TAL TAL TAL TAL TAL TAL 

Who? I think you need to add more TAL's