Nature vs. Nurture

Obviously one cannot become a great chess player without doing some study of the game, or basic tactics training. Likewise, a genius doesn't automatically achieve grandmaster rank. But in the end, which really makes the difference? Is it the thousands of chess puzzles, hundreds of openings, and pages of theory tucked under ones belt, or the pure mental ability that lies inside the player? Which matters most? Post your opinion and why.

Personally, I think it's completely obvious that you need to have a decently above average IQ to really achieve those incredibly high ratings. But from that group it's pretty much only the well-studied who shine. So I think that sadly but truely nurture is definetly the bigger factor.

You're assuming the IQ you start with is nature -- this may well not be the case.

I do agree that study trumps brute force intelligence when it comes to chess, however with either one lacking greatness is out of reach.

There have been dozens of high-level GMs, bordering on legendary, whose every waking moment is passionately dedicated to hard work on chess. Some casual, non-studying Capablanca brushes them aside. I think this is a vote for the 'nature' side of the debate.

 As is Fischer's dedication from a young age a vote for the nuture side.

NATURE - Capablanca - Fischer - Carlsen - but then they have to be nurtured.

I'm a borderline genius (IQ=140) but an average chessplayer (rating = 1600+).

(and I'm not so smart sometimes). lol

Pure nature. There is one story about Tal. He once played simul on 30 or 40 boards. Afther all games were done, only player who won vs Tal comes to glote a little. He comment something about game and Tal tells him: I should play better in 23 move. Yea, like you remember that game, man said. I dont remember your game, I remember all games, Tal said. So the bet is on, and Tal sits down and write moves of all 40 games he played. And that compared to me going to store and that I can't remember everything I need to buy is, LOL!