Does Magnus carlsen have talent?

I also think to get to 2100 is very good.  perhaps that IS as far as you can get without talent and coaching.  but as pfren says; why NOT try for coaching? 

but then , perhap your already  trying that.   you should ask him!  isn't it true that every good player is unhappy with their play?  

I could certainly use a coach. My openings are good, my endgame is pretty good but in some of my middlegames I struggle. I think it would be great to go over my games, both OTB as on chess.com correspondance, with a coach so I can explain what I thought and the coach can explain me why my ideas were right or wrong, or maybe right ideas wrongly played. This summer I'll be playing a ton of tournaments and in September I might contact an established coach I know irl. I am 21 by the way.

as 2100, self taught! wow.

 I think you have the ability to reach for more. so you of all people IMHO- are uniquely talented.  my guess is that you see your screaming high elo as due to alot of hard work.

... the only problem I ever had with the post; was the implication that your not talented.  there are hardworking patzers out there making no chess improvement at all.  Its an unanswered mystery how far Anybody can go with a good program, though.  

I don't think anybody knows and I don't think anybody CAN know. 

Wasn't it kramnik that said he thinks about can make it to look 2500/2600 with a coaching and determination.  I'm a little short! LOL.

I can't find it! maybe this is how rumors start

"I don't consider myself a genius. Seriously, and I am sincere with you, I don't think I am a genius. Of course I am gifted at chess; maybe I have quite good analytical possibilities, probably certain things where I am better than the average person. But I don't think I'm a genius. And you don't need to be a genius to be a top chess player, I think so. You need to have a lot of qualities basically. It's like in every sport, it's about many other qualities. It's also about strength of your character, about psychology. Talking about genius it's going a little bit too far. If you're talking about the definition of big talent, in my opinion, I was just thinking about it and finally I can only define it as the ability to learn. Basically talent is the ability to learn."  V kramnik

http://www.chess.com/news/kramnik-i-dont-consider-myself-a-genius-7502

no one considers themselves awesome (if there being honest, and if they've studied their own game).

Well I got to say not entirely self taught, from my 8th until my 16th I did have training, just the last couple of years I was on my own . Funnily enough I felt like I've been improving the most those last years. I started to recognize/develop my feel for certain positions and based my openings on those; at first I tried a lot of openings and then played one for a few years but then got bored. Now I tried almost all openings (not kidding, I tried and read a bit about pretty much everything) and got a nice little core I now know well. d4 (Catalan and often fianchetto setups versus other systems than the QGD) with White and for Black the KID, Grünfeld, Stonewall, Sicilian Scheveningen and Dragon and the Modern Defence with a6. I also worked through well known endgame books and really tried to understand it.

The reason I feel I am not very talented is because some of the children I played and studied with when we were 10 year olds are now GMs or IMs. However, objectively speaking I guess I am bit over averagely talented. I wonder how far I can come, obviously can't be sure when there's so many relevant factors apart from study. 2300 FIDE for the FM title seems cool.

Funny by the way how on such a nonsense forum thread (the title, lol) one can still have nice interactions. 

Monday we can watch Carlsen again at the Norway Chess, are u excited?

He was a child prodigy but he got no talent. lol

According to what I've read about Carlsen ( from his infanty to this moment ) I assume that his IQ must be 165+.

Some people simply like to deceive themselves with thinking that everything can be accomplished with ''hard work''. I have no problem to admit that someone is simply smarter than me... I had a shred of a talent when I was a kid, but that was nothing comparing to some other kids of my age...

I can probably beat Djkovic at tennis if I work at it hard enough !  

Yeah, that's what I'm saying!

It would certainly be a lot harder to win a game of tennis without working at it! 

In the 1980s, Magic, Bird, Jordan, Gretzky, and Kasparov all showed what the combination of talent and hard work brings. Since then, every basketball player, ice hockey player, football player, chess player who has been the best in the world has been immensely talented and hard working. 

The day of the talented amateur being the world's best is long past. Carlsen is the most talented chess player in the world today, and coincidentally one of the hardest working chess players too.

magnus is OP

Magnus is extremely talented at remembering stuff.

Not that Sheldon hiccup pic again ?? :(

Must be the week-end, it's when all the dignbat questions come out.

From what I've seen and read about magnus, he's sociable and well balanced. Asking if he has chess talent is ridiculous. I don't particularly like Kasparov, but of course he is talented. Just goes to show genius comes in all shapes and sizes. Carlsen said in one interview he knows what the best move is and spends most of his time confirming it.

Carlsen claims that he works only 4-5 hours a day...

A flashing one handed cross court backhand at 100mph is required to stand a chance against Djokovic ..You must also be superfit to last 5 or 6 hour matches. 

So a combination of talent and hard work is required to excel at any sporting endeavour. If you have no talent though I dont think you can reach the top no matter how hard you train.

True.