Secret of Studying Style of B.Fischer

Of course, my story doesn't explain savants -- but it's a complicated issue! And that's really my point -- certain assumptions about talent oversimplify the issue in my opinion.

No offense, but you're no Carlsen

I started out awful too, and had difficulty calculating more than 2 ply.  I didn't like math (or any subject) and never tried in school (until I went to college 8 years after HS).  I did always like patterns and logic however.  I chose chess by accident and found out I liked it.

Anyway I'm not lamenting because I'm not a NM, and it takes talent to be a NM, boohoo.  If I were to lament it would be because the top 10 are only populated by people who were once teenaged GMs.

For me it's these exceptional cases only that point to talent's existence.

"No offense, but you're no Carlsen"

None taken, of course, but I keep more options open than most people. There are certain ways I think about the game that IMs don't; even though they can beat me now, that doesn't necessarily mean that their way of thinking about chess is better than mine. I don't think positions are boring or dull like even GMs sometimes do. They can beat me for now, but that's because I still have to build up the basics; I'm not convinced that they can reason better than me.

(Capablanca -Genius and good looks, Alekhine -Talent + Hardwork) = One of the greatest chess match in history.

Of course, this is pointless. Obviously I can't prove to people that I will become a GM -- I have a feeling though that if people could "be me" (a scary thought) for a few hours they would know what I meant when I said the game comes naturally to me, and that I think in ways that grandmasters don't. But of course, nobody has a reason to believe any of this, so I will keep this to myself.

All I will say, and I believe you agreed on this point, is that signs of talent go beyond just having a good rating at an early age (which is generally due to coaches). Having a good rating at an early age is a short run advantage, but I think there are long run advantages that don't result in an extremely high rating at first.

Well talent or no talent Elubas, I wish you luck with your chess :)

I also enjoy the creative problem solving aspect.

I think some GMs say positions are boring because their technique and experience combine to make the moves and result obvious to them.  Other times they're being lazy, sure.  Other times I think they're correct (even if my evaluation is different).

Yes, I agree with that.  And not being a teenaged GM doesn't necessarily rule out anything IMO.

This thread is baloney.

http://www.chess.com/tournament/fischer-random-madness2

Talent or work? Yes.

hard work beats talent when talent doesnt work hard

This is a great documentary about Bobby Fisher, it explains some facts, his approach to chess study and interviews with rivals and people who knew him

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ds8sVhxdvfA

He study the games from Capablanca , Alekhine and Morphy. I think he study more than 8 hours a day.