Secret of Studying Style of B.Fischer

That's exactly what I did (clearly), and asked other people to state their opinions in equally clear terms.

Any insight into what makes some people bigger dicks than others?

Critical acclaim is undeniable, and anyway, you can't deny that their guitar work is far more complex than most people who have studied... but music is much more relative than chess, so it's probably facetious to conflate the two.

Still, saying Mozart was instructed in music by his father doesn't come close to explaining how he was considered good enough to tour Europe when he was six friggin years old.

For the record, I don't think any of us who say there is such a thing as talent beyond hard work are entirely denying the existence of environmental factors.  You're the ones who are being absolutists, and it's not a pretty sight.

The proof is more in the fact that you're asserting the contrary, and you're clearly an idiot.

You think if I work hard enough I could catch Usain Bolt?

Hormones again. The girls just don't have a chance.

Prove you can't or you're an idiot!

But I can't prove it; I haven't taken a four-year course in statistical analysis yet!

I think you have defined what is generally called "talent" pretty well. When I talk about my chess abilities to others, I say, "I definitely don't have much talent," and that is ture, I progress very slowly, but in honesty, I strongly feel that if the game was systematically presented to me even in my late childhood, I would be a pretty "talented" chess player by now. Anyway, this personal part is just speculation, you can as well ignore it, but the point is that, talent is not really based on some magical entity that is spread randomly to different people (races, sexes, etc), it has little to do with your genes, or from a different discourse, "a gift from god" or something like that. It is about your environment, how you developed as a person, what toys you were handed by your parents when you were 2 years old, what kind of approach your first teacher had, did you have a dog or a cat in the house, or none? Did you have a mean neighbour kid who bullied you or not, etc. And this of course doesn't end with your childhood stage, but that's when your personality, learning skills, aptitudes etc can change much more quickly. 

If you were the "experimental daughter" of Lazslo, you would be not playing with your friend, but coaching him. That experiment is a very serious one, it's really really convincing. Even the wife was chosen by a newspaper ad, mentioning the experiment. And it did "produce" the single best female player in history, and by an incredibly large margin among others.

Personally, I really don't understand why that experiment isn't among the most famous (like pavlov's) in the history of many different disciplines, starting with psychology. It is genuinely one of its kind, and is something that is extremely difficult to be equaled in the history and future of science. No university at the moment could pull of such a strong experiment, simply because of ethical and practical reasons (no one would spare their marriage and child's life etc).

His passion for the game was simply incredible; we should admire that. I love the part where he teaches himself Russian just to read more books

All of this has me wondering:  Is it possible to be talented at hard work?

I'm certainly not.

It is surprising it doesn't get as much attention, isn't it? From what I have heard, lots of great players tend to imply that "great players are born." But I find it incredible that this father says he's going to make three brilliant chess daughters, and that's exactly what he does! Most convincing is that all three of them were at least master level players -- what are the odds that he would make three exceptional talents? It's not like Kasparov could say he had two brothers who were also masters. I think most people agree that being related to a great chess player does not equal being anywhere near as good. He put them all under his study plan, and it worked for each one. What a way to prove a point!

I think so

I believe I am

Definitely. When I say it should be among the most influential experiments of all time, I'm not exaggerating to make a point, I honestly mean it, I'm dumbstruck by it's very low popularity compared to the strength of it. It isn't even cited in courses like "psychology of learning" at university level. I truly think it's very absurd.

Maybe it's because it's not done in the academia, but that's bullshit. The fact that 1) he wrote the book before he started the experiment is just, I mean, it's just amazingly convincing. Add to that,

2) One of her daughters has reached not only GM level, but has made history even when evaluated only chesswise (ignoring the experiment)

3) As you have mentioned, all sisters became incredibly strong players,

4) His wife was chosen randomly

These four aspects just nail it. No doubt, no question whatsoever. The hypothesis has been proven.

Thinking more about it, if he were a Harvard professor in psychology department, I believe he would now be at the top of the science world. 

 Michael355 = GambitKing ? davidegpc it looked like your friend back.

blablabla

I'd like to think I'm talented at being talented.  It's a pretty sweet gig.

I was going to say I agreed with your post, then came back and found this...which I obviously agree with even more

I have very poor memory. It has always been like this since I remember myself as a child. I am sure this comes from genes and not from environment (by the way my older brother has exceptional memory). And regarding chess I have really hard time with the opening theory.

Are you saying that with proper training I could make a GM? I don't think even growing up in Polgar family could help. No way.

Then how does one become a member of the "top elite"?

And why not GM?  What's different about GMs?