the Polgar experiment actually disproves the hard work theory

Dude, pretty much anyone can "run" for president. Lots of people do every cycle. Most are just crackpots with no real ideas and no campaign other than posting videos on YouTube. Just because someone says they're running for president doesn't mean they should be taken seriously. Hell, we've got a guy who dresses up like a hippy wizard and goes by the name Vermin Supreme running for president, but I think anyone would be hard pressed to take him seriously as a candidate.

Definitely not. But people who don't follow the usual training advice have no right to complain about how they're "stuck" at one skill level or another.

No matter the activity, only 2% of people can be in the top 2%... but it's not as if everyone was vying for the top, so it's not a 98% failure rate. More like 80% didn't bother trying, and 18% failed.

And apologies for being somewhat disdainful with "didn't bother trying." I realize chess is completely impractical and legitimately boring for most people. Maybe only sane people "didn't bother trying."

But those who stick to a daily schedule can improve. Especially if they've only ever studied 1 or 2 things (out of a possible 10 lets say). They're not stuck, it's just that learning more is impractical (or more likely, too boring for them).

Yeah yeah, you found out that the world isn't mind dependent and you're so proud of that that it makes you think that you're wiser than everyone else or something, without having to actually argue any sort of point.

Although the usage must have felt good for the daughters, who are now famous and renowned.

"I think the biggest obstacle is that the correct kind of work is completely unappealing to them."

Yes, sometimes (perhaps most of the time?) the most efficient way to improve is not the most intellectually satisfying. I think a clever thing to do is to try to make the efficient way also the intellectually satisfying way, but there will be limitations to that. It's like trying to be allowed to play a video game for a school project. Even if you succeed, the way you'll have to play the game for it to be largely educational will be so different that it might not have the fun you generally find in video games anymore. If you just play the game normally you might happen to learn a few things just by chance, but probably not that many things.

The Lazlo parents are ideal parents. Parents are the best teachers. School teachers are far second. I hope to follow the example of the Lazlos. Not necessary majoring in chess.

"Teaching is just another salary paying job for most"

I get your point, but come on, this is a pretty strong claim, that teachers who are truly passionate wouldn't appreciate.

Most not all. I'm sorry this statement offends some dedicated teachers. Even among political leaders, there are still few who sincerely wants to serve the nation and citizens. If I get negative remarks, it's alright. But I won't edit or delete anything.

Well yeah, the point of my comment is to comment, not to infringe your right of free speech. I just personally don't see how you can know that much about people and their motives.

@Elubas I see your point. I judged based on my personal experience. I knew less than a hundred teachers so I made a reckless generalization. My apologies for that.

Oh, I think we have enough of them. Plenty.

Everyone can't be a "Bobby Fisher". The rest of us need to do a little work. Ponder this point, I wager if chess runs through your blood stream, The "work" isnt work at all. More like relaxing while you do something you love to do. If the "work" is too boring, chances are you just dont like playing chess. People who are great guitar players, LOVE playing the guitar. They don't mind practicing. Here's a secret.......when they started, they SUCKED at music.  Regardless of the skill level, chess players play chess. 

Have any of the Polgar sisters ever expressed regrets at missing out on a "normal" childhood or education? 

Put another way, what is your evidence that the Polgar sisters are in some way worse off because of their parents' choices? 

That's a pretty strong ends justify the means kind of approach, though, isn't it? I mean, if I was forced into something at an early age, and just so happened to succeed, does it really make them better parents than if I didn't succeed? Either way it's the same pushiness. I don't know, my mind isn't made up on the whole thing, this is just something I think about. And I'm not claiming I know exactly what was going on -- the Polgar sisters claimed, for example, that they sort of agreed with the direction they were heading as kids, or so I heard. But then again, maybe they agreed because they were conditioned to, early in their life. I hope not.

Put another way, Laszlo's parenting might have resulted in something good, but maybe parents shouldn't try to replicate it, because there is such a high chance of something not so good coming from it. Even if the kid does develop some talent, it can get stressful to feel like you have to reach a certain level of output (e.g., rating, titles) to feel meaningful.

Ok, to be fair, you were just replying to the comment that talked about whether or not the sisters were well off. Sorry about that.

Yeah but, again, if the person just turned out to be a mediocre piano player, their time would be considered flat out wasted, with the parents to blame.

"Father Polgar would have stopped his 'pushing' if the daughters would not have made fast progress in chess"

Well a lot depends on this part.