Anyone else have zero to little talent at the game?

I have zero, possibly less.

Hey, you're on the right track spongey, just keep asking questions.

But over there. Ask them over there. Yeah, where we can't hear you.

Thanks.

Do we have a way to know that there aren't others who would have more difficulty with the same books?

I know how to read. That's becoming a rare skill in today's society.

I have to agree....

but what kindaquotey  means is that some people may have difficulty understanding the content of the book.

I certainly have difficulty. All I know for certain is that I started reading chess books a long time ago (almost half a century ago), but rather late in life compared to those who exhibit actual skill. I was 15. I started with a book of miniatures and several others that I cannot remember (likely by the likes of Fred Reinfeld). I remember spending a lot of time playing both sides trying to work out the answers to my questions that were not answered by the text. This process of seeking my own solutions probably helped me more than the book itself.

Content like forks and passed pawns?

There really aren't any difficult concepts in chess... otherwise you wouldn't have super strong kids. What those kids have (among other things) is a good memory for positions and good calculation habits. They don't know any concepts that are secret or difficult.

It sounds trite, but chess skill comes down to work.

Sure some people don't know how to study effectively, so they might waste a lot of effort. Kindaspongey may have been thinking of that... but his posts are so low effort it's not worth trying to have a conversation with him (which is why I told him to go away).

imo it's pretty hard.....or I wouldn't be so bad at it xD

What's pretty hard, be more specific

I didn't say chess was easy.

Everything....that's as specific as i can get xD

There is no such thing as talent in chess, anyway- it is just an excuse for people who are too lazy to do some work.

u couldnt be further from the truth.

https://en.chessbase.com/post/in-focus-alireza-firouzja

they say mostha world's best players go thru a rating 'air pocket' at a tender age. AF went from 2277 (May 2015) to 2475 (Feb 2016). 200 points AT THAT LEVEL....AT THAT AGE in 8 months. He wuz 12 yo in May 2015. anyone here think he set out for that under the auspices of hard work ?   ::/

Sorry IM pfren. he wooda whitewashed u like a santorini shack back then....let alone now.

The idea that talent (a sort of natural multiplier for work) doesn't exist at all is silly. Clearly the disparity between some people's rates of improvement can't be explained solely by work.

But the great majority of people are very far away from hitting their genetic limit. For them it's always some combination of not caring about work, and not knowing how to work.

Top kids work really hard.

I know a teenage IM who is of course still in school. He studies chess 6 to 10 hours a day, every day.

And gaining 200 points seemingly overnight at that age is really common. It doesn't matter if he was rated 2200.

A better argument is pointing out that you can take 2 people who work equally hard and they will not have the same results. In fact the results of some pairs will be so different that you can't explain it by amount or quality of work.

---

But these are people trying to be professionals.

Lets instead look at the average person on the forum. Probably rated closer to 1000 than 1500. Probably asking questions that amount to "how can I improve while ignoring 90% of what I should be studying?"

Is there reason to believe that these habits can be acquired with equal ease by everyone? You think that there are no examples of a kid learning something difficult?

No.

I think the real talent is capacity for hard work. Some basic level of reasoning ability and memory are also necessary.

I've also worked with students who were gifted in some areas of academics, but who struggled to comprehend fairly elementary ideas in chess. Chess calls for both spatial understanding and logic. Adherents of the left-brain/right-brain dominance hypothesis would need to investigate how a balance between the hemispheres is necessary for chess performance. Brain scans support this need for balance. 

It is interesting that brain scans of musicians performing are similar to brain scans of chess players at work, except that music performance produces more intense activity.

Do you have a reason for this belief? Is there also no math talent? No musical talent? No acting talent?

"... The level at which one plays is governed by a number of vague and poorly understood factors. The first is what one might term 'natural talent'. ..." - GM John Nunn (2006)

IM pfren wrote:  ... it is just an excuse for people who are too lazy to do some work.

Would it be appropriate to explain your below-GM title as laziness?

Is there an identifiable reason to believe that that is the only quality involved?

“... Clearly the disparity between some people's rates of improvement can't be explained solely by work. ...” - llamonade2 (~1 hour later)

How about not choosing to put a lot of work into something where one’s rate of improvement is well below that of others?