how much of chess is natural talent

Much can be said that natural talent and skill is everything

we never know

I think that you need a understanding of strategy and problem solving to be actually good, but allot of it is just studying and practicing

I've heard talent described as "the natural tendency to do the correct thing".  With this in mind, someone who has talent doesn't have to work as hard to understand concepts etc - they pick it up quickly.  This certainly doesn't mean that someone who isn't talented can't become a great chess player; they just need to work harder with more coaching to reach the same level.  So if you're not particularly talented, you probably won't be the next Magnus Carlsen but you can certainly become a very strong player with hard work.

Chess is not art, it is a science.

Anyone with a decent mind and enough training can reach the heights of Carlsen.

Notice how his rating spiked after some training with Kasparov? It's all knowledge-based.

Sure, anyone can ride in an airplane, but what's that got to do with chess?

amd87 wrote:

I've heard talent described as "the natural tendency to do the correct thing".  With this in mind, someone who has talent doesn't have to work as hard to understand concepts etc - they pick it up quickly.  This certainly doesn't mean that someone who isn't talented can't become a great chess player; they just need to work harder with more coaching to reach the same level.  So if you're not particularly talented, you probably won't be the next Magnus Carlsen but you can certainly become a very strong player with hard work.

I agree with you but in order to pick up chess in specific you need to have a good talent with problem solving and critical thinking skills. What I am saying is that chess has allot of thinking involved with it obviously, but I am not sure if a person talented in chess can learn it "faster" if they don't have the greatest problem solving skills, but they still have solving skills. I don't know, maybe I am not understanding you correctly.

Do you honestly think Fischer was talented?

It was his obsessive nature that made him World Champion.

If anyone was as passionate about chess as Fischer, they would be the next Fischer. Spassky was crushing him, until Fischer sat down and studied every one of his games. It was only through hard work that he managed to win.

There is no talent in chess. It's all learning. 

That's right, you can't learn how to perfect your opening magically, it's all with practicing and learning.

And then shut up some more.

Well he is 50/50 I can be as passionate as Fischer and not be as good as him. Another thing is time if you are obsessed. But I can be as obsessed as him but I can't be as good as him. So I am not sure about that but I do believe that you need to study and learn together better in chess. That can go with any other game or sport, you need to practice to get better.

I did say something correct. I'm sorry if you're too stupid to notice.

Yereslov wrote:

HurricaneMichael1 wrote:

@Yereslov Please shut up till you have something correct to say.

I did say something correct. I'm sorry if you're too stupid to notice.

Lol ok guys relax

Of course you can be as good as him. Nothing is new in chess. It is all discoverable in chess books. The game is science-based. There is nothing mysterious or profound about the game.

In reality, anyone can be a GM if they devote enough time to the game.

Most are content playing casual games.

@Argonaut13 I think you understand me :-) My quote was a bit broad I guess but I was referring to e.g. natural tendency to know what good moves are, figuring out the correct way to proceed in a given position without having to be told etc. It's all learnable I'm sure but the less talented just have a harder time doing so and so this perhaps stops them reaching the highest levels.

Yereslov passes some more wisdom in our direction:

You're arguing in circles (it's all just a matter of semantics).

You are confusing wisdom with knowledge. Chess is knowledge-based.

Wisdom is useful after a loss, but not so much the other way around.

I guess that depends of what the definition of "be" be.