the Polgar experiment actually disproves the hard work theory

I've never said there was any correlation between language and chess.
What I said was that chess was not the only focus of Polgár's experiment.
All of the girls speak multiple languages as naturally and fluently as much as a native. They were speaking 3-4 language fluently before even leaving Hungary.

They publish papers and books in languages foreign to them.
And that is definitely a very rare thing itself.

That this ability is also present in all three sisters aside chess is simply just too much of a concidence.
Or do you honestly believe that? 

What you still miss is pretty obvious: it can't be done by an everyday layman.
I will never be able to raise my kids to be geniuses. Why?
Because I have absolutely no idea about pedagogy and child psychology.
I'm no expert in teaching, I have no idea how to teach kids.
Neither do you.

It took two brilliant teacher and actual expert of the field to get the girls where they are.
'People' are not able to create another Polgar or Lebron.
But this particular, very talented and dedicated psychologist was.

Oh c'mmon man!

Struggled with math: MICHAEL FARADAY, CHARLES DARWIN, ALEXANDER GRAHAM BELL, THOMAS EDISON, JACK HORNER, E.O. WILSON and EINSTEIN ALBERT. To name a few.

Dude - THOUSANDS of kids speak multiple languages fluently. My housekeeper's daughter speaks 3 languages fluently at age 10. 

Is she a prodigy? Heck no. The ability to pick up languages is an innate, special capability of the human brain - neuroscientists have identified the area of the brain responsible for it. It's so specific that if you damage it, you can specifically lose language and nothing else. 

If you take 1000 kids and expose them from birth to multiple languages, the MAJORITY of them will internalize most of these languages, naturally, without any special teachers or training. Many Europeans are raised this way, and I was raised this way in a multilingual household. 

That does NOT happen with chess exposure. There is something very special and specific about language that does not x-over in most cases to chess. You don't become a naturally strong chess player just by being surrounded by it - if that were the case, my daughter would be a pretty good player by now, yet she's just as clueless as all the other 5-6 year olds at the youth chess club. I'm amazed if she can even remember that the pawns don't go backwards!

Bull.
None of them are savants.
It takes but a few minutes to actually read a few papers written by them, or simply watch interviews with them.
All of them are completely normal women without any defects or any disorder.
In 'My Brilliant Brain' Susan was actually examined by MRI and CT machines, and they find bugger all.
The conclusion of the scientists was that Susan was a perfectly healthy, normal woman, with completely average responses to completely average life situations.

And Polgar was never able to replicated his study with any other child, or assist any single other parent to even remotely replicate his results. 

If Laszlo Polgar was able to crank out top 10 women GM after top 10 GM using his methods (ok, even ONE other top 10 GM of similar caliber as his kids with similar genetics), it would be more plausible that it was more nuture than nature.

Are you kidding me?!

They are CHESS savants. You cannot say otherwise.

This does NOT mean that they are 'weird' or dysfunctional in other domains. They come across as balanced, healthy, 'normal' people - but they are NOT normal in any sense of the word when it comes to chess.

They were never normal in CHESS, even starting as early as age 4-6 (too many stories and examples of their excellence to count, blindfold chess being but one obvious one), when it's pretty clear that nature is far, far more impactful than nurture. (You go try 'training' a 4-year old for hours, good luck with that.) 

They were probably 'average' per testing in other domains, but if you test them in chess, they're like the top of the genetic potential.

CLARIFICATION: I just saw you are referring to 'savant SYNDROME', which is on the autism spectrum disorder. I agree that they aren't savant SYNDROME, but they definitely are savants, which doesn't mean you necessarily are autistic-like.

There is a pretty big difference between being exposed to foreign languages and picking them up naturally (sure, everyone knows that kids are able to do that)

and between the fact that none of the girls were taught them by native speakers, and they all picked up multiple before leaving the country.

And yes, I personally do believe that being able to express yourself in a foreign language as much so as to actually publish books in that language is pretty extraordinary.

There are only a few authors in the world that can do this without the reader ever suspecting that the author was born and raised elsewhere.

There is far too many variables involved to consider it proving or disproving anything.

Again, you're simply ignorant.
Please do read up on the subject.
Polgár actually wanted to adopt three different african boys to prove his experiments further, to even prove that gender, race, or parents don't matter as long as there is a capable teacher such as himself; but by that time he built up such a contradictory reputation that they actually didn't let him do it, and forbid him to adopt any children.

Don't believe it, look it up.

Here's the deal:

It's very dangerous to look at Polgar's language generalizations and assume they were the same as chess. As pointed out above, modern neuroscientists have definitely proven that there is something very, very special about the human language center, and it's almost certainly not a big overlap with chess.

The language abilities of the Polgars, while impressive, is eminently achievable by many people with decent talent in language, and very achievable by many people exposed repeatedly to languages from birth and onwards. This understanding of language was only in its infancy at the time of the Polgars' childhood, and is really more a more modern understanding.

The chess abilities however, are totally different. The Polgar's specific youth abilities in chess are amazing even to most GMs, and their world-class performance is a totally different animal compared to their impressive but much more achievable multilingual abilities.

Again, I stand by my point.

African kids or not - he was unable to transfer the results of his system of training to any other kid except for those with related DNA (his own).  He was clearly smart enough and articulate enough to be able to convey his points and ideas to other parents, yet nobody (and I mean NOBODY) has been able to even remotely achieve a Judit Polgar (nobody has even been able to achieve a quarter of a Judit Polgar player using his methods. I'm no Polgar, but it's pretty clear that no matter how hard I try and train my daughter in chess at age 5, she ain't ever approaching even 1/100th of Judit's ability at age 5.)

Most scientists would say that if you can't replicate your results outside of your own very unique situation, you need to start looking at other reasons why your unique situation worked out. And there are a lot of reasons pointing at genetic gifts in the Polgar girls' case, as there was good documentation of their prodigious chess abilities even at an age where kids can barely benefit from high level coaching. (4-5 year olds are NOT particular disciplined students!)

Of course, I realise that the girls were coached by masters of the field.
However, I think that the fact that Polgár, the man who he was, was their father, makes all the difference in the whole experiment. 
It just couldn't have been done by someone who's not an expert like him.

Nothing beats hard work!

Again, fact is, you have never read anything written by László, nor you know anything about his work outside the experiment.
I'm out of this pointless argument.
I could might as well argue about powerlifting or american football because I know fuck all about them.

I totally disagree.

If it were all about Laszlo, he should have been churning out top-level youth chess players one after another, or helping parents churn out really strong super young chess players as early as age 5-6, even if they weren't quite as good as Judit. 

It's pretty clear this NEVER happened. And Laszlo was articulate enough and passionate enough to try and spread his methods around. And you can't tell me parents didn't listen to him - I'm sure many tried - and failed (like I did.) You don't need to go all-out to realize it's just not working - it's pretty clear it ain't happening pretty early on. 

The FAR more likely explanation - the genetic gifts for chess (specifically) were strong in the Polgar sisters. Much like how Serena and Venus dominate tennis, the Polgars share similar genetic gifts and given the right environment and stimuli (training), they can become world-class players.

And while the Polgar sisters did need higher-level training to become world champion-caliber, keep in mind that they were super strong way before that. Everyone knows the story of how Laszlo and his adult friends couldn't solve some tactical problem, so they went and woke up Judit (or one of her sisters) who was SIX years old, who groggily looked at the problem, solved it nearly instantly and went back to sleep. These girls were crushing it even before they got the training - the training just allowed them to really hit those world-beating levels, but it's a total lie to say they were like 'merely above average chess players' without the training. They were BORN as chess monsters, playing blindfold without any special blindfold training at like age 6.

That's a strawman argument. 

Sure, I haven't read Laszlo's works in depth, but the issues we're discussing (specifically, Polgar's ability as being more nature vs nuture) do not require me to ben an expert in Laszlo's work to discuss it. 

In fact, most of Laszlo's work is probably outdated and outcredited by the more recent neuroscientific advances in language, which despite not being a personal expert, I know a lot more about than any scientist did in Laszlo's time when he wrote his stuff. 

If you want to disagree, go ahead and point out the areas in my arguments which are problematic - that's how discussions go.

Played some chess at the early age of 12 by reproducing some games on paper, in class, blindfold chess I guess, never done my homework, hated math, went to a club at the age of 14.

Again, as an overall response to your post:

How many Judit Polgar's has Laszlo been able to create outside of girls who had the same DNA? 

ZERO.

How many players of even similar class have been created, credit with mainly using Laszlo's methods?

I'm not absolutely sure, but I think the number is close to ZERO. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong and show me if otherwise. 

Again, I'm not saying training/nurture isn't important - it's absolutely important for any genius in any field. But without the world-class talent to match, fuggetaboutit.

I just get tired of hearing Laszlo Polgar's name repeatedly brought up as an example of how 'nurture' can really create something special in kids. He has a great story, and even I would love to believe it, but as a main rule in science - if NOBODY ELSE can reproduce your results, you should be highly, highly skeptical that your methods and your story are as effective as you say they are, and you should start immediately looking for a different explanation. 

I have no clue what this has to do with anything. The Polgar sisters were the three strongest female chess players Hungary has ever seen. There has been nothing like them, male or female, in all of chess history. So they didn't become world champions. They also didn't play at 2900 level. They were still extraordinarily successful. The fact that they didn't beat Kasparov doesn't say anything about whether Laszlo Polgar's experiment was successful or repeatable.

Obviously, good genes, good circumstances, and great training from birth created three of the best players in the world, one of which broke into the top 10 in the world, and one of them has the highest rating any female has ever achieved.