Talent v. Skill

I was just reading an article on ESPN that compares Kobe Bryant to LeBron James. In this article it says that at some point that LeBron will have to make a change from relying on talent to relying on skill. So my question is, which one is more important in developing chess ability. I guess talent would be considered natural affinity for the game, while skill would be things such as advanced opening/endgame knowledge. So basically, does the more talented player win or does the player with the superior skill triumph?

Of course, for purposes of your question, you may define terms the way you like, but I would offer that skill and knowledge are quite different. Indeed, I have plenty of chess knowledge, but my skill level is woefully inadequate. I don't mean to confuse the issue, but I believe these two are different and that skill is worth more than knowledge in the play of the game and in its outcome. I'm sure I will stand corrected after a few more posts. 

Usually people with talent tend to acquire skill faster and easier than people without talent. So one may say, skill is a consequence of talent. In which case, the question of "talent vs skill" becomes ambiguous.

That said, it is still possible for people without talent to be skilled by sheer hard work.

Well I think the way I'd try to define skill is something that has to be developed? I'm not sure if that's the best definition but anyone is welcome to offer their own insight on what exactly skill is and how it relates to talent.

A person who has little chess experience, but spends countless hours studying books, doesn't help the person become a better player.

Play a lot of games, learn from them, and last study.

With talent, advanced learning will come quick and relatively easier.  A basic talent could spend hours studying and still not UNDERSTAND the jist of what is going on.

Who would you rather have lead? The fresh, out of college Lt. leading a squad, or the Sargeant with years of hand on experience, but lacks the officer (books) rank?  There is no substitute for experience, no books can prepare you until you are thrown into the action.  Experience, along with books advances people to new levels, not the other way around. 

I hope this kind of makes sense.

LeBron James is better, so I guess I have to go with talent.

CAVS!

 That isn't what the research says.  I don't remember where I read it.  But, succesful chess players play LESS and study more(Kasparov told carlsen he was playing too many games.  However, carlsen didn't take the advice of cutting down on games and he seems to be doing fine.  If I remember correctly kasparov tried limiting himself to 50 games in a year.  But, what would be the fun in that.)

Well the number of games needed to improve vs. study time is definitely proportional to your current level of play. Once you reach a certain point, more outside study is definitely required to improve. But at lower rating levels, it is necessary to play more games in order to put what you know into practice.

I agree with PurplePuppy, I think talent allows one to learn faster than others, but hard-core studying by an untalented player may prove to be far better than a talented person that lacks hardwork. Of course in direct comparison a talented player would go farther than the untalented if given equal studying times to both. 

Kasparov is probably the strongest chess player to date, when he says something other chess players should listen...That is why any super-GM on a good day can beat Carlsen but to beat Kasparov you had to take a ticket and get in the "better luck next time" line because you had to get him in a very bad day to wressle a point from the champ.

I agree that Kasparov is the greatest player ever (yes, even greater than Fischer, although it pains me to admit it).  But this wouldn't make him an authority on issues of skill, talent, effort/hard work, etc.  He may be the greatest for any one of those reasons or (more likely) for a combination of those reasons, and yet still misunderstand the (nature of the combination of)reasons.  But if we do use chess performance to judge this question, I think Carlsen is still a good case in point.  The kid is better than Kasparov was at that age.  And he spent his early years playing ... Lego!

I am of the opinion that when we talk about skill versus talent we are talking about varying "cap" levels. Someone with talent has a higher cap on how good they can possibly be than someone with lower talent levels. This certainly does not mean that people with talent will always be better because personal effort and determination play a role as well, but they do have an edge. I think Jerry Rice and Randy Moss are my favorite sporting examples of this case. If Moss had the heart of Rice there is no question who would be the better receiver, but because of personal factors Rice will be seen as the better player.

Skill, for sure. However, in the early stages, talent is more important.

 I totally agree and reinforces what I said earlier.  You must have talent and understand the basics before you can become an advanced player.  As far as Kasporov is concerned, he doesn't represent 99.99% of the world.  I am sure he played plenty of games earlier in life.  But, when on top you too probably wouldn't challenge any joe on the block.

if im understanding this right talent is more like natural "knack" for playing and skill is practice and technical ability...then ill use a few chess examples such as talented players-morphs, lasker, capa, smyslov, tal, spassky, reshvesky, ...skilled would be like tarrasch, nimzo, rubenstein, botvinik, karpov, and kramnik.  with a few that excelled in both areas Alekhine, Fischer, Kasparov  and in the world of mortal chess there are those types of players so with in any division the determination comes down to who is playing beter that particular game 

skills

In the movie "Good Will Hunting", Minnie Driver asks Matt Damon how it is that he is so good at math? To which his really good answer is, "when it comes to math I can just play." "I can't play the piano, to me it is just a wooden box with keys and two pedals." 

In my personal experience, I have played games where the position just made sense to me and making the right moves required very little detailed calculation and consequently very little time to find.  That is what I call natural talent.

Then I have played games where the position makes no sense to me.  It is at those times when I have to rely on skill.  Strategic and tactical techniques that I have learned through long hours of study and practice.  For example, hours of solving tactical problem diagrams on line and in published books makes it much easier to find tactical shots in positions from my actual games.  Another example ,regarding strategy, is playing countless 5 minute games to reinforce the opening lines that I have memorized.   Practice, practice, practice.   If you don't use it, you lose it.      

Of course, there are many other factors that affect your level of play.  Your state of mind during the game, your opponent's state of mind and whether either one of you is in time pressure; are just three factors of many.

In conclusion, without further clarification, the requisite attributes to be an outstanding player are natural talent and a great memory(very necessary for recalling the skills learned through long hours of study).