Do you think you are high naturally talented?
What rating should a naturally talented player have?
Sort:
May 6, 2013
0
#3
After a long time of playing, I suppose 2000 may be possible. In the first few years...maybe 1600 if they're really good about learning from their mistakes?
probably as high as 2300 FIDE. i know one such person.
A minimum of 2700, because we have examples of players who never read a book, and were not talented, and reached 2300-2400, just playing.
ProfBlunderer wrote:
Do you think you are high naturally talented?
No.
pdve wrote:
probably as high as 2300 FIDE. i know one such person.
Really? This person doesn't study the game much but can take on 2300 FIDE masters? What's he or she like?
by the way, it is interesting to note that capablanca claimed he never read a chess book in his life. don't know if he was 2700 FIDE though :)
barilli wrote:
A minimum of 2700, because we have examples of players who never read a book, and were not talented, and reached 2300-2400, just playing.
But they probably had a teacher or a coach
keju wrote:
ProfBlunderer wrote:
Do you think you are high naturally talented?
No.
pdve wrote:
probably as high as 2300 FIDE. i know one such person.
Really? This person doesn't study the game much but can take on 2300 FIDE masters? What's he or she like?
he is an interesting guy. he does a 9 to 5 job and part-time coaching. plays the dragon a lot. sacs the exchange almost always. his strength is the bishops.
keju wrote:
ProfBlunderer wrote:
Do you think you are high naturally talented?
No.
pdve wrote:
probably as high as 2300 FIDE. i know one such person.
Really? This person doesn't study the game much but can take on 2300 FIDE masters? What's he or she like?
Lakdawala's brother (lakdawala is IM if I remember correctly, an author of many chess books) never read a book or studied, and reached 2300, and the guy was definitely not talented. Someone talented must be at least 3-400 points above. But I know many players who just playing blitz with the computer reached 2000-2100, and these were also not considered talented.
barilli wrote:
Lakdawala's brother (lakdawala is IM if I remember correctly, an author of many chess books) never read a book or studied, and reached 2300, and the guy was definitely not talented.
How do you know he was not talented?
MCCSaturdayOpen wrote:
Why is that important to you ?
The way I see it, a naturally talented player is someone who instinctively plays the game "in the right way" ... even before knowing any theory. I'm trying to see whether I'm playing the game in the right way, or how far left to go ... my guess is that a natural talent would be at least 1900 here on chess.com ratings (15 min live chess), but I'm not sure. If it's more like 2300, then I'm a long way from knowing how to play chess naturally.
after very careful consideration, and over 40 years doing what this thread suggests...simply pick a random number between 1200 and 2900 and your selection would be the rating of a naturally talented player
Okay hold on ...
keju wrote:
If someone is naturally talented at chess, but doesn't study any openings or endgames or read any chess books at all - just thinks on their feet - what is the highest rating that this person could achieve? Is 2000 FIDE possible?
I think s/he will be able attain 1400 to 1600 FIDE, not more than that. As to the claims after becoming a Grandmaster anyone can claim that they didn't have any coaches or didn't study a single book.
Good grief, it's 2653.
any advance on 2653?...do we have 2657?..going going
everyone has their own benchmark of 'talent'. when kasparov was asked if talent was essential to success he said that you need natural talent to be in the top 5 in the world.
May 6, 2013
0
#19
keju wrote:
If someone is naturally talented at chess, but doesn't study any openings or endgames or read any chess books at all - just thinks on their feet - what is the highest rating that this person could achieve? Is 2000 FIDE possible?
If we're talking about an adult beginner who loves the game and plays pretty regularly but doesn't "work" on his game, I would expect him to reach like ~1700 FIDE after 5-10 years of regular practice.
If he gets regular feedback in analysis from stronger player, he could go higher, maybe 1900-2000 ? 
Any nominally intelligent person who can complete a college B.A. at a decent school can achieve USCF 1600 in (perhaps) two to three years, or a bit longer.
But most folks are unwilling to invest the time and effort.
It's lots of hard work and study, no mystery there.
As for "naturally talented," this dumb-ass topic has been beaten to death in many dozens of threads over the past couple years. It's the nature / nurture controversy for Chessnuts.
Get over it, please.
If someone is naturally talented at chess, but doesn't study any openings or endgames or read any chess books at all - just thinks on their feet - what is the highest rating that this person could achieve? Is 2000 FIDE possible?