Talent vs Training

Yes, I too await the fruits of your cruelty. 

But it does seem that the majority of those from compromised circumstances don't do so well (even if those who are successful happen to have come from "compromised circumstances")

I do have to agree with your labels comment though, can't tell when or how talent exceeds hard work etc etc.

Sure there are a certain percent of people who can reach GM, but I think if you want to say "most everyone" then I'd put it down to FM.

There have been enough "talented" youngsters who make IM pretty quick but for whatever reason don't quite make it to GM well into adult hood... so I tend to think it's not as easy as spending enough hours with some good books.

If I can make an analogy with musicians...(pretty sure this has been done before)...?

When I was about 6 or 7, I built my own makeshift drumset out of cardboard boxes and pots and pans I "borrowed" from my momma's kitchen. Entire boxes of Carandache pencils got broken on that ugly piece of noise-producing rubbish. Although I kept asking and nagging, my parents refused to buy me a real or even a toy set. It happens...

By the time I was 13 or 14 I got to sit down behind a "real drumset" and proceeded to play entire songs, grooves and even solos of such quality, that the drummer to whom the set belonged to, asked me if I could give him some lessons. The guy was 19 and had been playing and taking lessons for a couple of years already. I was proud as a peacock but had to say no, because I had absolutely no idea what I was doing...I just sat down, put my feet on the pedals, took the drumsticks in my hand and played... It felt like the most natural thing in the world for me, although I had never had real sticks in my hand before.

When my parents gave in to my nagging and harrassing, and bought me a cheap second hand drumset, it took me about 3 months before I ended up in a bluesband. I was 16 and the second youngest fella in that band had to have been around 35...they were all mature and experienced musicians. Played all over for a couple of years with that band.

When I was about 18 or 19, a friend played me an album by Jeff Beck, called "Wired" for me. I was blown away!! Right then and there I knew that that was the kind of stuff I wanted to play. And in my view, the only way to get to that level, was to learn how to play jazz. So that's what I did. I went to the conservatory where they had a jazz section and did an entrance exam. I failed horribly on the theoretical part (I never even looked at a music score before in my life), but they allowed me in anyway because they were very impressed with how I played with other people and the "feel" I had for jazz.

Everything just came very easy for me, so I never really practiced...I just played. And a lot of the students in that first year were really struggling with the styles and feel, so I kinda always got the top spot in the top "ensemble". I got asked for just about every gig and session. I even replaced my drum teacher on a number of occasions when he couldn't make a certain show or something.

But then a strange thing happened... All those guys that really had to practice 6 or 8 or more hours a day, because they weren't so "good" as me...started to improve by leaps and bounds. And all the while I was just having fun and coasting. Partying a lot and never taking the instrument seriously, why should I? Everyone knew I was a natural! But the people that consistently put in the hard work, started to get more work and I wasn't the "top dog" anymore. In the end I had to "catch up" and work, study and practice very hard to just be able to stay at their level.

So where I started out as a natural talent, there comes a point where hard work overtakes that raw talent. And so, yes, in a way I believe in that 10.000 hour rule. If you work hard enough at something, chances are very real you'll be able to achieve a level of competency that might have seemed unattainable at first. No scientific study or paper is necessary for me to prove that. I've witnessed and experienced this myself! But the thing is...there are no shortcuts, no magic method or regimen that'll get you there. There is only hard work. Ofcourse when we talk about Mozart, Buddy Rich, Paul Morphy, Lionel Messi or other "wonderchilds" it'll be a different story, but when you're on the right side of the Gauss curve, you'll do okay IF you put in the necessary hours.

My humble opinion

Well, as usual with these sorts of airy conversations, who's to say what will act as a goad to achievement and what will block it off completely? (except of course a bunch of blabbermouths like us on some forum...lol)

It's not really a rule, it's some pop-psych inanity.  It's just a sententious way of saying what you put forth here yourself:  that if you put a lot of work into something, you're likely to get something out of it. 

I think this is all pretty arbitrary...and a bit difficult to accept.

In an interview Fischer once said that he didn't think some of the top players were really that talented, they just worked like dogs. But he also said that if the talent isn't there, a player could get good but would never become a grandmaster, so I think there has to be a combination of the two somewhere at play to reach GM level.

Yep...hard to disagree with that. 

Here's the problem: Chess skill could come from hundreds of factors, so nobody should pretend that they know the answer.

I mean, for all that is holy, a 5 year-old kid might be extra good ("talented") at chess because he did the Rubik's (spelling?) cube. There are so many possible explanations, that could be linked to his earlier life. You don't know the answer, guys.

But that has never ever stopped a bunch of chessplayers from spewing like they do. 

So many worthless rants (and pictures of waffles resulting from them) could be avoided if we just understood when we didn't know the answer.

Well, I could definitely do without the rants (but I cherish the waffles, I must say). 

That's just my opinion of course

In the real world where there are many practical considerations, it would be much lower (as seen in average rating of an adult tournament player)...  even then you may disagree why my "FM given ideal conditions" thing, but again just IMO :)

Thanks for sharing, good story :)

The quoted part stuck out to me though... just because you experienced this in one instance doesn't mean you can generalize it to everyone (a flaw you see often enough by people, myself included).  So yes, it would still be required to prove it scientifically

I suppose it depends on how your brain works and how good you are with patterns some people get better just by playing and playing and some analyse and analyse. Every chess mind works differently.

Is it ever possible to rival the phenomenal skill of inherent talent with simple self discipline and determined study?

Almost anyone of average intelligence can achieve master status (USCF 2200+) with the proper training, coaching and study over a period of 3 to 5 years.  Most of that 3-5 yr. period will be spent building an opening repertoire and the concomitant opening tree that must be built to become a proficient practitioner of that opening repertoire,  and becoming technically expert in the endgame [especially R+P endgames, (specifically Philidor's and the Lucena position, etc.)  However, after that the learning curve becomes much steeper,  and inherent talent becomes essential.  Your brain must be wired for chess.  

Does anyone know of examples?  With this question you are looking for statistical outliers on the bell curve throughout the history of chess.  I do not know of any. 

 PRACTICE MAKES PERFECT

well Bobby Fischer just analysed and analysed

People start to peak after 3 to 5 years of serious study?  This simply isn't true