Talent or hard work?

Hi everybody! A little question for everyone here:

Is chess a matter of talent or hard work? And, do you think some "gifted" chess players are "naturally" better then others?

The answer to the question "Do you think that (insert something arbitrary) is a matter of talent or hard work?" is usually: both.

Very profound.

The thing is that when we desribe some players like Morphy or Capablanca, we describe them as "gifted" players. It's even said that Capablanca never opened a chess book in his life!

Since he complained in one of his own books about the content of other (opening) books, I hope that this is not true.

That changes everything

About the story of chess books, I was mistaken: actually Capa said that he had never opened a book on chess openings: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Ra%C3%BAl_Capablanca (read: "early adult career") so paulgottlieb was right, it's pure exaggeration :)

I would say "talent", hard work seems nowhere close. Talent of quick thinking, analyzing and predicting. And to use them wisely in Chess is mastery. Talent, copuled with INTEREST does the trick, you know. Even though you have talent (of whatever i mentioned above), you need an interest in Chess to play good. 

No one is "gifted", unfortunately. They are just talented, interested and committed to the game. It is because they play well and can think better than others. 

Hard work determines how far you will get.  Talent determines how fast you will get there. 

I'd like to rephraze you: Can a chessplayer like me, with average abilities, to reach Chess Olymp due to the hard work? Is there some height it's impossible to overcome it? 

My question has a "general" aspect. If I wanted to ask this question, I would simply have asked it But I believe everyone is able to reach the summum of everything, after hard and passionate work of course.

@DrRobertJr Nicely said!

With hard and passionate work you will be able to reach your individual limit, which naturally varies a lot among players. There is no evidence at all that everyone can reach everything. Sorry.

Capablanca is a little unreal for me... He lived about 100 years ago. And I see how temporary children are trained. They are not entitled to a mistake.

I've read where chess masters have played numerous games simultaneously while blindfolded. This surely requires some  natural talent that we are not all blessed with? This ability/memory/board visualization may be improved with work, I'm sure, but some must have a head start on others. Then if two people work equally hard, won't the one with the "natural" talent be the better player?

This is just an intuitive position but it seems right to me (although my intuition has failed me in the past).

Uh, well, yeah, you can naturally be good at working hard without working hard to have that mentality.

Besides, it's obvious that you're just trying to insult Kasparov, when instead you could look at what he means. But no, your vanity is more important. Of course.

I certainly respect your ability. I really don't want to get into an argument based on semantics but surely you would agree that not all people are born equally both physically and mentally? I think I could spend the rest of my life trying to develop expertise and positional awareness and still never reach the level you have.

As I mentioned in my prior post, I've no formal background to support this, just practical intuition, so you may very well be correct. I'm just adding to the thread to maybe stir up ideas.

It's true that we're not all born equally.

Don't think of it that way. Think of the issue like this: How much of a component of chess ability comes from chess patterns in your head? How much of that component comes from experience, dedication, enthusiasm to the game?

It's not so much a question of if we have genetic differences or not; the question is, are the genetic differences really that significant in the long run? Maybe someone with a low IQ would have a tough time with chess, I don't know -- but it's not like every chess player is a genius either. Players like IM Rensch, IM Pruess, and GM Shankland don't really seem so pompous -- they seem to be pretty normal guys. So I don't think it's as simple as just being born exceptional -- a lot of things go into the making of a great chess player.

Elubas, I think you hit the key point: "a lot of things go into the making of a great chess player." It just seems to me that some things come easier for some people than for others. I remember my school days when I would have friends that could understand and excel in subjects that took me a lot more effort and I still was not able to reach their levels of expertise.

Again, hopefully I'm not being argumentative, just trying to add food for thought.

Again, the question is not if we are all equal or not, but rather, how important is it? Does it form a physical barrier if we are not a certain IQ by say, age 6?

Ever notice when being good at one thing helps you do something you have never done before? For example, if you grew up solving the Rubic's cube at a young age, even the first time you play chess, perhaps you will do better than the other kids starting out -- in a game like chess, you can never start out very good, but a good background can help. Believe it or not, I think playing chess has actually made me a tad bit better at tennis somehow, even though I didn't practice much (obviously, to improve a lot you need practice); it made me think about my shots a bit better! It makes me just a tad more logical when I play card games. It's all developed.

I think it can be surprising how our skills can develop in the background sometimes.

Talent is the natural consequence of hard work done in the right direction.