Talent vs Hard Work

I thought this was an interesting point.  From what I can tell, being naturally talented at something gets more (atleast initial) respect than working hard - atleast in the US. There's a Bobby Fischer interview where he's speaking of Chess players in the USA and says "Many of them are not that talented, they just work like dogs". Upon hearing that it immediately gave me a somewhat negative impression on those who work towards their goal.  It got me to thinking, why is this a bad thing? 

"I don't think he's that talented, he just works real hard."

"Look at that talented young man."

Talent implies natural ability.  Why should natural ability be more respectful than an individual who works his ass off to come to the same level?  A talented person works less to achieve the same goal, should not studying be more respectful than studying?

Would you rather be looked at as a "talented" Chess player, or a "hard working" Chess player? 

Heh, as a rule don't take anything Fischer says too seriously.  One or the other never exist in isolation, it's just that the more talented you are the more mileage you get per unit of work.  If either are zero then the person is unskilled so it's not a reasonable question although I'm sure the topic will generate a lot of replies.  As to which is more admirable (work or talent) that's personal and largely subjective.

Well it wasn't the first time it came up, I just used the quote from Fischer because we're familiar with him and likely the interview (Dick Cavett Show).  Another example is an interview I was listening to with 2 Starcraft pro-gamers trying to make it in Korea, where pro-gaming is very popular.  The two players played there for a while and when asked by top Korean pro-gamers how good the 2 pro-gamers from the USA were, they said one was talented, and the other was hard working.

Oh yeah.  Wasn't it Kasparov who said hard work is a talent.  The ability to study for hours and still get something out of it is a talent.  The ability to continue working hard day after day is a talent.

I'm paraphrasing here.

It's actually interesting when thinking of Fischer as well.  Who was Bobby Fischer's favorite 2 players?  Morphy and Capablanca - the 2 players known for their natural talent.  Fast forward to the World Championship in 1972 (and before that) and we see that he never used any seconds in his preperations, it was all done by himself.  Fischer, atleast seemingly, becomes known as the "hardest" working chess player who studies day and night, is never without his pocket chess set, has no interest beyond chess, gets lost in conversations and pulls out his chess set, etc.  Fast forward to 1999-2005 when Fischer has his anti-Chess rhetoric.  "The game is dead", "There's too much theory", "So much depends on opening theory." etc.  So he invents Fischer Random (Chess 960).  Fischer Random is explicity designed to profit from those which are naturally talented.

Essentially Fischer wished he was naturally talented, but exhibited all of the qualities a hard working person would have.  Ofcourse he had to have had some talent, but stay with me.  He knew what it took to rise to the top and did it, but now when others do it he hates it because he's no more willing to work at it. 

Basically, Fischer's whole thesis about hating chess was that the "hard working man" was surpassing the "naturally talented" man.  Interesting.

That's a very good point.

The problem is that to be at the very top BOTH talent and ability to work hard are necessary.

 That is basically what Fischer said on the Cavett show. He said you can work hard and become good but to be great you have to work hard and have talent.

Most of that is correct but I think slightly missing the point. Take this out of the context of Chess and put it in the context of academic studies: there could be someone who spends twelve hours revising for a test and then scores 90% (with the average score being 70%); meanwhile, there could be someone who is talented enough to revise for a minute or two and score 100%. So while what you said is true, I don't think that they can't exist in isolation, because two minutes of revision is not hard work.

Exactly. I've been saying this for years.

To be good at anything, you need hard work OR natural talent. To be great, you need both.

Evolution provides our natural talents.  There is no natural talent for chess, any more than there's a natural talent for quantum physics.  If the frat parties I attended during college were any indication, both these things put one at a procreative DISadvantage.

"Talent" is synonymous with (A) not being stupid, and (B) working your ass off.  Show me a Bobby Fischer, and I'll show you a kid who spent 20,000 hours of his childhood being the biggest chess dork in the world.

The hardest workers who aren't complete and total morons are at the top of every profession I've ever encountered, excepting those where evolutionary traits ARE in evidence.  (E.G., professional athletics.)

Kasparov is right, hard work is a talent. Thomas Edison put it this way, "Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration."

What Kasparov pointed out is that the ability to work hard while efficiently is itself a talent. For many people, even if they forced themselves to study chess 10 hours per day, they would be absorbing next to nothing after the first 2 or 3 hours. The talented ones would be absorbing information and ideas during the 10th hour of study as well.

You are absolutely right. :)

I think what most people consider to be talent is actually the will, motivation and interest to learn. That's why you stop absorbing any kind of information after a short time, you just don't give a ****.

That is especially true for students in school, where the select few students who aren't asleep during the boring classes are considered "naturally gifted".

Just my 2 cents. :)

Good point. A sustained burning desire can only bring success.

 You need to find a new line of work.

As a teacher and coach, this is not only the most destructive attitude you can possibly have toward your charges, but it's completely false.

The available evidence in practically every field of endeavor shows legions of the uber-successful who were told they'd amount to nothing by teachers who didn't know how to help them improve.

It's aso full of stories of the "preternaturally gifted," who amounted to diddly squat because they thought it would always come easy to them...which nothing worth while ever does, once you get past school.

The stories of prodigies who made good on their promise are a hell of a lot fewer than the stories of the "untalented" who put their nose to the grindstone and left the kid geniuses in their dust.

"Talent" is the biggest curse in the world.  Not least of all because it's almost entirely imaginary, and prone to leeching the will from those cursed with the label.

Apologies if this has been mentioned...  If you want to do more reading on this subject, check out the books "Outliers" and "Talent is Overrated".  (Note with regard to the latter title, it does not say talent is unimportant.)

Yes, there simply isn't anything in this world you can't train for. People take IQ as a constant you are born with, when infact it is easy to train your mind. Kasparov and Fischer maybe had 180 IQ, but it was the result of chess training most likely.

First of all fischer isn't talented at all he worked his whole life in chess since young age that not talent that hard work and he just hate ppl who are better than him every chess player in top level have worked really hard since young age and they aren't natural at it at all.