Talent vs Training

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

What you posted above is a generalization.  My post points out that after achieving master status having completed 3-5 yrs. of training and study; the learning curve becomes much steeper and inherent talent is absolutely necessary.  Of course all of these posts are statements that can only be proven in some scientific measure with alot of statistical data.  

some players are born chess players, some achieve chess ability,while the rest of us are thrust upon the board. with apologies to the bard.

Well, I disagree anyway

Most people can't manage to reach master, and those that do almost all take longer than 3-5 years.  If you're good enough to make 2200 in 3-5 years you're certainly not going to find yourself stuck at master level.

You also say that most of that 3-5 year period will be spent on building proficient opening knowledge and endgame positions such as Philidors and Luncea...

I have two problems with that.  One, the need for opening proficiency starts at 2200, so I think you have that part backwards.  And 2, the luncea and philidor are such elementary positions and so quickly learned that I have even another reason to just generally feel like you're not sure what you're saying.

I guess it all comes down to what one might call "talent". Some have none, some have a little, some have more than others and some seem to have it all. But even those that have more talent than most, will not be all they can be without hard work. And many lesser gifted men have surpassed many "wunderkinder" with just that...hard work. That was the point of my story and I stand by that. I gradually went from performing to teaching and this has only strengthened my opinion on topics as this.

Ofcourse you could always try to hit your head against something and hope that you suddenly speak 15 different languages, including an extinct one, develop a photographic memory and be able to see variations 25 moves deep. But for most normal people the key is 99% perspiration and 1% inspiration.

natural talent and "picking up a little here and there" can get you to 1800, i'd bet, but not much further.  to really advance, solid chess theory must be learned.

I just wish I had the talent to figure out what Wafflemaster's avatar is a picture of.

"However, after that the learning curve becomes much steeper, and inherent talent becomes essential. Your brain must be wired for chess."

That's a complete assumption. You don't know that. For all you know, the people who can't get past 2200 might just be going through the motions: looking at books, but not actually learning. I could come up with dozens of alternative explanations, but since they're all unproven, it won't get anywhere.

Oh brother.

[Long comment deleted. I've already wasted enough time on debates like this in the past.]

Let's take a different perspective.  How many of the top 10 rated players in the world today were recognized as child prodigies from the time they were ages 6 to 12?  The average individual has to go to opening books to learn what comes naturally to these prodigies.  I am reasonably sure that the average 6 to 12 yr. old does not have the necessary maturity and time  to absorb the variations in several opening books in order to play them correctly over the board.  After all these are children we are talking about, and what children like to do is play.  Not sit at a chessboard for hours on end trying to learn a tricky variation in an opening riddled with transpositions to other openings.  The child probably doesn't even understand what a transposition is.  Their brains are wired for chess and it comes naturally to them. 

In other words, while the average individual has a ground level view of the landscape, the prodigy has an aerial view of the landscape.

I'm not saying that the prodigies don't have training and coaching to fine tune their natural abilities.  But it's another thing to teach the average baseball player to throw a 98 mile an hour fast ball even if you start training them at a very early age.  That is why very few people make it to the big leagues.  It also holds true in other sports.

I am not saying that you can't aspire and work very hard to become a GM.  But, the statistics prove that compared to the world population very few chess players become GM's.

I read somewhere that only five 5% of rated players ever make it to mere master level.

I doubt it that's high. If it is, there's plenty cause for optimism. Maybe USCF rated players... 

I think it IS USCF rated players.

THanks

Only 1 percent of USCF rated players reach USCF 2200.

I may not agree with you but I'll defend to the death your right to lie...

I thought 5.

A lot of people debating the labels of 'talent' vs 'training' here so here is how I'm thinking about it.

I think spotting talent can be obvious. An 8 year old chess player beating any good experienced chess player is talent in my mind. To be 8 years old (or younger) and still have the faculty to execute masterful strategy in a game of chess can only be explained by talent. An 8 year old is hugely unlikely to have any sort of understanding of the deeper strategy and tactics behind the game, he just understands how the pieces work and it seems clear to him. There are talented prodigies in any skill, Mozart is an obvious musical prodigy. It came naturally to him.

Training is more murky to define, because as people have said, excellent players are often a combination of talent and training. Someone who has played chess for 30 years and only just reached a master level, I would describe as a product of training, not talent.

Interesting to hear Fischers thoughts BeachDude67, and I think I kind of agree with that (hard to argue with Fischer :P)

I think Transpo might be on the right lines with his baseball assessment too.

I guess I asked initially because, whilst I don't have the time (or inclination, truth be told) to spend 10,000 hours studying, I do spend a lot of time on tactics trainer, chess mentor etc. and often it's extremely hard to gage whether the time I've spent actually equates to a better performance. For example, there's a guy I play OTB fairly regularly, and he makes no effort to practice or study, but he'll usually beat me in a game. Sometimes the study aspect can feel like a futile endeavour, and if it was true that training cannot surpass talent, then that would be proof indeed that it was a futile endeavour! (Assuming of course that the purpose of playing chess is to win, which is another debate entirely…)

Who cares if you can or can't beat your friend (unless he's only a little better than you).  And who cares if work can't surpass talent.  If you feel like you're seeing/understanding more than you did a few months ago then that's a pretty rewarding feeling.  That's how you can tell your work is paying off :)

It seems as if when people think about talent, they think about child prodigies (Morphy, Mozart, Buddy Rich, Bobby Fischer, etc...). I don't necessarily see it that way. I mean, what is "being rich" for people? Is it being "as deep as the sea" rich types like Bill Gates or whoever leads the Forbes list? Or is it the regular artist/actor/musician type who can also do just about anything their heart desires? Maybe the CEO of a major bank? Maybe it's the guy next door you grew up with and owns a chain of supermarkets? For every Bill Gates there might be ten Madonna's. For every Bono , there might be ten succesfull businessowners or CEO's.

The "talentpool" is no different. The question is, how much do you need of it, before it alone is enough to make you succesfull in whatever you do? A child prodigy is just that..a phenom...the stuff of legends! But for the mere mortals who might have been put on this earth with a sizeable, but not exceptionnal amount of talent, they'll have to do a bit more, in order to reach mount Olympus. And among that group, there are those who strive relentlessly for excellence, despite the fact they weren't dealt the best hand, and ultimately are succesfull! And there are those who squander away their godgiven talent and are merely....acceptable.

I play chess for fun...like most people do. And I'm not terribly good at it...again, like most people. But for those that have a natural aptitude for it and would like to see how far they can take it? They shouldn't let nonsense about "you can only get so far as , because that guy could do all that at that age etc...." discourage them. The biggest talent you can have for chess (or any other endeavour for that matter) is enjoying it! And sorry, I don't have the necessary scientific studies to back up that last statement, but it might just belong somewhere in the "common sense" category.

So hard work will only increase the chances of you getting somewhere, it'll get you there faster and it will let you stay there longer.