Chess talent.

I know chess and IQ aren't related, but chess and genetics may be.

Lack of talent also limits the speed at which you are able to learn. I know from experience that I can learn some things in minutes that takes other people hours. I also know that some other things are extremely tough to wrap my head around that others find more or less obvious.

In simple terms it is called confidence

Who is History's greatest monster towards Chickens?

General Tso or Colonel Sanders ?

I think people do have different levels of "chess talent" but I think it can easily be extaggerated.  Often when I talk to beginners about chess they seem to think chess requires lots of talent.  It almost becomes an excuse to not to put effort into chess.  I don't like excuses.  If I don't have an excuse it means I can get better.  If I have an excuse that is beyond my ability to change, such as chess talent, it means I might not be able to get better and gives me a good excuse to be lazy.

Anyway, I've probably not written my opinion very good.  If you want a well-written opinion of a grandmaster, here is the link I posted earlier.

I'd say the Fox.

There are some, but none of them are Mozart.

It's very likely with the amount of kids who have done this, and the amount of good music teachers & caring parents in the world now, Mozart's practice regimen has been equaled or exceeded many times over.

I personally know a whole lot more about Chopin than Mozart, so I'll switch prodigies. I do know that Chopin didn't need to practice a lot of things at the piano that many other people toiled at, yet none of those others ever equaled Chopin.

BTW, it's cool that this was brought up, because I am in music education, and I study the art of learning both on my own, and formally. I am also very aware of my own strengths, weaknesses, and learning processes. I have little doubt that Nature and Nurture are both hugely influential. There is indisputable evidence that early starters develop better, and that good/efficient practice is extremely important to development... but, the "nature" aspect is still, almost undoubtedly, a part of how people are. Even very young kids at a few years old are not a "blank slate".....

^won't let me edit

...And even young kids, given similar instruction and practice regimens, will develop differently, have different strengths/weaknesses, and at different speeds. The older we get, the more true this is.

I don't think they were stretching the truth at all. They actually had a film clip of him at younger than two, rocking back and forth, shrieking, and fretting, but as soon as the music started playing, he stopped rocking, and got a rapturous look on his face. He's been studied by experts, several of whom were in the documentary discussing it. There would be no reason for them to exaggerated, at all. Nothing for them to gain, whatsoever.

Something I have heard of is that if you pass your "window" for learning language, from your parents talking to you as a little kid, you can never learn it satisfactorily from then on. So if you have abusive parents that keep you in isolation, if you try to learn language at like, age twelve or something, you will only be able to know it at a very low level. I'm not sure if this would apply to chess, but perhaps in some ways it does.

Isn't it annoying?

Thought it was just me.

I've heard that too, and perhaps it's true for chess. But there are a lot of kids who start playing young, and never get very far.

              When it comes to learning almost anything success is usually dependent on the teacher. A good teacher can make a boring subject interesting, he can give the students the motivation to learn if there is none. He can prod them to persevere if they're tired and because learning is a lifelong process he can instill in them the desire to achieve something greater than themselves. 

             Talent is plenty but to persevere and improve needs a lot of effort. After all nothing is achieved without effort.

Not all of them do quit. They just keep playing at an ordinary level.

Example: I have very poor vision that wasn't diagnosed until I was almost 9; because of that my visualization skills are vritually nonexistent. Its a REAL hindrance to me that I'm working hard to overcome. My wife on the other hand has almost savant-like visualization abilities...living technicolor no less...I tell her she would be an awesome chess player, but...you guessed it...she has zero interest in learning the game.

I agree, that's why whenever I get a chance to play online against whoever's looking for a game I try to pick someone significantly higher than me...humbling but educational. I'm playing a guy right now a few hundred points higher and the game (5 days per move) has been going on since JULY. I'm up a pawn in the endgame but it'll probably end up drawn. To me that's a victory and an education.

Russia used to teach all the kids chess, and most were seen not to have GM talent.

I've seen that same show several times.  Apparently I'm supposed to be an 800 player and that's all there is to it!