Chess talent - nature or nurture?

hello i am bastiaan and i am a very good chess player

 And your point is?

I believe at the beginning it's all natural talent, or perhaps patience. After a while though, it's all nurture. It's what you take away from a game if you lose or win, or maybe you nurture your skills by reading up on tactics, etc. However, whether from experiance of playing, or studying up, you're nuturing your 'skills'.

I don't think anyone on here knows what the " Nature vs  Nurture" argument really means. Of course everyone can continue to learn but it is what you START with! Some people are born with incredible talent.  John Elway's kid just quit trying to be a quarterback in college. Michael Jordon's kid will never make the NBA. Do you think they could of had any better mentors or opportunity? Yet they were not born with the same skills. Nurture would be take any 100 kids randomly and give them the same training and they will all be masters. They do that in Russia and many don't make it , they just keep the cream of the crop. Gee I wonder why?

In nature and if nurturedd then marvellous results.

Exactly. One more: plus very hard work! I recently saw Kasparov at the Super Nationals in Nashville give a speech and he emphasised "hard work" over and over.

He stated that when on top of the chess world he never took anything for granted, never relaxed, and worked even harder to stay there.

Both

I've found after some rigorous study that when I win a game, it's indicative of my native intelligence. When I lose, it's because my opponent has wasted their life studying and working hard while I was applying my native intelligence in other, cooler pursuits.

It is really an epistemological question, but you run into the problem of the is-ought distinction:  Person 'A' is more adept at problem solving, visualization, memory, and other skills conducive to chess, therefore Person 'A' ought to be a master at chess. Unfortunately, not necessarily so. Person 'A's natural abilities are independent of, and prior to, chess. He might apply them to chess, or any activity. But all persons possess these faculties in some degree or another. Person 'A' still has to acquire knowledge about the game, its rules, strategies, and methods of correct play, all of which are empirical in nature. So in other words, nurture.

mhtraylor, is your avatar a picture of a person gettin trepinated?

I think the interest and curiosity towards chess are in the genes,  after that it's hard work and diligence.  For a very few of us, this built in love and fascination is so high that the player is willing to put huge amonts of effort and time that's necessary for success, along with all the sacrafices that is a must, if one wants to become exceptionally good.  These guys/ladies are also very lucky, in a way, because there are people around them that can give them support, mostly financial.  Look at B. Fischer.  He had the love, the smarts, and the work ethic, that is unparalelled, but he also had a mother that was willing to realise what was happening, and willing to go the distance, supporting him.  The Polgars?  They were also very lucky, yes they had the love, they were very smart, the had desire, they put in a lot of effort, but most importantly, they had a father to start it all.  So, to answer, you need the genes, you need your own effort to dig out the potential, but you also need proper circumstances for success....

 yes if the person was provided for, consistently, with the basic needs for living.   Even if he was rich, and had time, uhm well he may not need others then....

You need both. Fischer had the right environment and the right mind. If Fischer grew up in a normal home with a normal childhood without having autism, I doubt he would have accomplished what he had. I'd say it's environment, genius, and passion.

Fischer MADE his environment.  growing up in a time and place when/where chess was an off-beat way to spend time...and virtually unknown as a potential profession.  He did NOT grow up under conditions which nurtured his development as a professional player, let alone the greatest.  Interesting that you refer to autism, since he was NEVER diagnosed as such by a competent professional as a result of testing/examination.  Any statement as to his "condition" is not based on a genuine diagnosis: no respectable psychiatrist/psychologist/or MD would make such a statement without A.meeting him and B.some formal examination.    Genius he had.  Passion to a fault.  Success.  He did it without the social supports Soviet/Eastern Europeans/Argetines etc. enjoyed.  This makes his achievements all the more impressive.

Fischer was both lucky and unlucky in his environment. Although chess was not much respected in the US, he was in the best place in the country to become a great player: NY City. When he walked into those chess bubbles, especially the Hawthorne Chess Club, he was in a state of grace.

Compared, though, to what a promising young Soviet talent would have gotten, that essentially equals neglect.

That Fischer could become world champ is therefore a testament to his talent and dedication.

As for any mental disorder, Fine felt he saw enough that Fischer definitely needed some kind of treatment.

Fine was too into classical freudian theory though it ended up sounding like psychobable and less like a modern diagnosis...though undoubtably, bobby had a screw loose, i have a degree in psychology and work in the field hands on with psychotic pts and think fischer had a personality disorder not a psychotic malfunction...anyway fischer was amazing in his conquest no doubt, definatly nature helped him out but his own nurture  (drive and dedication) made him strong...single minded chess chess chess chess more chess...it sounds like Tal had the best of it...botvinik didnt think Tal would be anygood-"he drinks he smokes he chases girls-if he could program himself corrrectly he might be a good player" botvinik himself thought very behavioristicaly and believed that you could program someone to become a master, fischer also said that he could take anyone of average inteligence and make them a master, kasparov and karpov both worked very hard and thought that training was more important...Alekhine thought good players are born...from my studies its almost obvious that people are born with aptitudes and through training hone their abilities...both are needed to be great, just one or the other can allow you to be good though

I made my own talent

 That actually would be nurture, because your dad taught you, just as your dad was probably taught by his.  Don't get me wrong, intelligence is nature, but nurture really passes on knowledge to kin.  I forgot who said it and don't quote me, but we are like a blank slate at birth, and everything learned is what we become.  Descarte???