Carlsen has been over 2800 every day since he was 18 years old.
Nakamura only broke 2800 once, at age 27, and then a few months later fell back under 2800.
Who is more naturally talented at chess Magnus vs. Hikaru
Sort:
It's hard to say for sure but i would say Magnus. When he was younger he was known for not working on opening theory as much as other top players, he would just outplay people.
Nov 17, 2022
0
#4
banannna23 wrote:
It's hard to say for sure
One is debated as the greatest of all time, and the other is barely a top 10 player of today. How is it hard to say when they're not even in the same class?
You kids confuse being popular on youtube with talent.
Talent is just one part of success. So it's often hard to say. You can't measure pure talent just by results.
Nov 18, 2022
0
#6
I think the top of any internationally competitive sport comes down to genetics. Everyone at the top has started very young and worked hard.
I mean, maybe we could talk about Rapport or Firouja since they had limited support from their governments... but Naka was raised in US, he's not a good pick to talk about talent I think.
llama36 wrote:
banannna23 wrote:
It's hard to say for sure
One is debated as the greatest of all time, and the other is barely a top 10 player of today. How is it hard to say when they're not even in the same class?
You kids confuse being popular on youtube with talent.
Nakamura is top 5 today, not barely top 10 if we wanna have our facts straight.
There are many talents involved in chess along with hard work, it would take a life long analysis to try and isolate "natural talent".
We have very little data to answer the question but odds are in favour of the better overall player Magnus.
Nov 18, 2022
0
#8
Kotshmot wrote:
llama36 wrote:
[Naka] is barely a top 10 player of today.
Nakamura is top 5 today, not barely top 10 if we wanna have our facts straight.
1 year ago he was #19.
2 years ago he was #20
3 years ago he was # #21
4 years ago he was #17
And in his prime, he mostly hung around the 8 to 10 spot, so barely in the top 10.
Carlsen has been #1 for over 10 years, and in Carlsen's prime the difference between him and #2 was the same difference between #2 and about #20 which is why no one bothers asking if he's the greatest of today, people talk about whether he's the greatest of all time.
Is Naka as talented as Carlsen? Why even ask?
It's because he has a popular youtube channel, and that's not a good reason.
llama36 wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
llama36 wrote:
[Naka] is barely a top 10 player of today.
Nakamura is top 5 today, not barely top 10 if we wanna have our facts straight.
1 year ago he was #19.
2 years ago he was #20
3 years ago he was # #21
4 years ago he was #17
And in his prime, he mostly hung around the 8 to 10 spot, so barely in the top 10.
Carlsen has been #1 for over 10 years, and in Carlsen's prime the difference between him and #2 was the same difference between #2 and about #20 which is why no one bothers asking if he's the greatest of today, people talk about whether he's the greatest of all time.
Is Naka as talented as Carlsen? Why even ask?
It's because he has a popular youtube channel, and that's not a good reason.
My guess why he asked is because Nakamura recently won the Fischer random which eliminates some of the chess theory and thus is more skill based. Wesley also totally destroyed Carlsen in the previous tournament.
But again none of this can really answer the topic question.
Nov 18, 2022
0
#11
flameus52 wrote:
Most would say Magnus is better because he's world champ, but Hikaru just sees the board and knows what the best move is, so I think he's more naturally talented. Right?
How? What? When?
But Why?
Just realized I can ask questions too. I must be talented.
Nov 18, 2022
0
#12
flameus52 wrote:
Most would say Magnus is better because he's world champ, but Hikaru just sees the board and knows what the best move is, so I think he's more naturally talented. Right?
you may assume that because you watch his streams.
Nov 18, 2022
0
#13
llama36 wrote:
1 year ago he was #19.
2 years ago he was #20
3 years ago he was # #21
4 years ago he was #17
And in his prime, he mostly hung around the 8 to 10 spot, so barely in the top 10.
Carlsen has been #1 for over 10 years, and in Carlsen's prime the difference between him and #2 was the same difference between #2 and about #20 which is why no one bothers asking if he's the greatest of today, people talk about whether he's the greatest of all time.
Is Naka as talented as Carlsen? Why even ask?
It's because he has a popular youtube channel, and that's not a good reason.
Yes yes but does he just see the board and know the best moves?
This is silly. Hikaru is an exceptional player but Carlsen is a once in a generation talent and one of the greatest of all time.
Nov 18, 2022
0
#15
idilis wrote:
llama36 wrote:
1 year ago he was #19.
2 years ago he was #20
3 years ago he was # #21
4 years ago he was #17
And in his prime, he mostly hung around the 8 to 10 spot, so barely in the top 10.
Carlsen has been #1 for over 10 years, and in Carlsen's prime the difference between him and #2 was the same difference between #2 and about #20 which is why no one bothers asking if he's the greatest of today, people talk about whether he's the greatest of all time.
Is Naka as talented as Carlsen? Why even ask?
It's because he has a popular youtube channel, and that's not a good reason.
Yes yes but does he just see the board and know the best moves?
Everyone knows he doesn't look at the board to find the best move, he looks at the ceiling!
Nov 18, 2022
0
#16
llama36 wrote:
Everyone knows he doesn't look at the board to find the best move, he looks at the ceiling!
Neither of them are "naturally talented", in my opinion. They both began receiving extensive professional coaching as children, and have played chess for the majority of their lives.
They are both examples of the benefits of high-level instruction, and obsessive work-ethic.
A "naturally talented" chess player (a term that I consider a pet peeve, as I don't believe in it), would be someone who glances at a chess board for the first time, and intuitively plays like a master from day one. It's a fantasy notion that doesn't exist.
Now the ghost of Morphy may haunt me ... 
Nov 27, 2022
0
#18
IronSteam1 wrote:
Neither of them are "naturally talented", in my opinion. They both began receiving extensive professional coaching as children, and have played chess for the majority of their lives.
They are both examples of the benefits of high-level instruction, and obsessive work-ethic.
A "naturally talented" chess player (a term that I consider a pet peeve, as I don't believe in it), would be someone who glances at a chess board for the first time, and intuitively plays like a master from day one. It's a fantasy notion that doesn't exist.
Now the ghost of Morphy may haunt me ...
That type of talent obviously doesn't exist.
Actual talent i.e. how much someone can improve for a set amount of work, obviously exists.
IronSteam1 wrote:
Neither of them are "naturally talented", in my opinion. They both began receiving extensive professional coaching as children, and have played chess for the majority of their lives.
They are both examples of the benefits of high-level instruction, and obsessive work-ethic.
A "naturally talented" chess player (a term that I consider a pet peeve, as I don't believe in it), would be someone who glances at a chess board for the first time, and intuitively plays like a master from day one. It's a fantasy notion that doesn't exist.
Now the ghost of Morphy may haunt me ...
How you view natural talent is inaccurate or just plain wrong in my opinion
I'm definitely guilty of crafting a straw man argument, there.
Though, it's because I generally scoff at the notion of "natural talent", in most cases.
In chess, there are few players who I might make exceptions for. Morphy, for example. I've seen many historical suggestions that he (might have) possessed an eidetic (photographic) memory.
If true, I'd definitely chalk that up to an "innate" ability.
In most cases, though, I believe high-level instruction, along with obsession, are the dominant explanations ...
Most would say Magnus is better because he's world champ, but Hikaru just sees the board and knows what the best move is, so I think he's more naturally talented. Right?