Chess ability: inborn talent or learned/environmental?

Is chess ability acquired or inborn talent? Which one supersedes the other?

I think it's a skill to be learned and natural talent follows

Or both. If you are part of an intelligent 'gene pool' that has acquired a comfortable economic environment that enables it to partake in cultural pursuits such as chess . Jewish people have disproportionately outshone other ethnic groups -  I believe there would be many very strong Indian players given the proper circumstances. Of course we had Anand who no doubt comes from a comfortable background. I think Sultan Khan was a remarkable player. Imagine him being given a good (chess) education from a young age.

Both. But studying chess will allow you to get your maximum potential.

both

Studying and practicing more chess is the highest force the average person can use to improve. Thinking it requires natural ability will block needed effort to become better.

I believe the best chess players on average including many grandmasters are definitely learned for this reason. 

Take Magnus and many GMs, some who are good blindfold chess. Aren't they blest with extra talent? Others have environment and similar study tools yet are less! Clearly, there is a genetic factor, maybe not the major one but genes seem to have significant role in chess, like music, etc.

An average person will never become GM. We all have ability to become above average. 

Someone once said great leaders are born to be made.  Inborn talents for calculation, spatial reasoning, and meticulous study need to be directed properly for great chess play.  Of course, the Polgar family showed that properly directed learning from a young age can possibly simulate inborn talent.  So, there's a feedback loop.  Someone born with the right connections can lose them if they're not focused, and someone without those connections could be brought up to have them.  And either way, the opportunity to play is a blessing afforded to those with disposable time, as previously stated.

Nature vs Nurture.

A classic debate.

Nature provides the basic hardware, Nurture provides the necessity  for modifications, and these take place by changing neural and brain structures, so that skills become part of the whole system.

That is why the French call rehearsals "repetitions". 

Spatial reasoning and memory are two genetic factors that affect chess performance. Most famous players had/have above average in one if not both of those and usually extraordinarily so. We've read many antidotal evidence for years- blazing calculation speed and memory of many games, positions, with brief viewing, Blindfold feats, among others. Of course without study and working at chess genetics wouldn't play as big a role but along with study they contribute a lot to a persons success. I think that among other reasons contributes towards some performing far better than others even with similar chess teaching. That said, we should rely on what we can control, our studying, and see how well we can improve.

Its almost entirely dependent on the type of training one does, and how many hours per day one does it for. There's no real good way to measure talent, usually people just see someone with a high level of skill and assume they were born talented.  

 

Wow!  Good sense. How rare that is on these forums!

Yet talent scouts have made a career of it? 

I agree, not everyone is Mozart right?

Like most things in life, its the genetic lottery.  Chess potential is largely determined by your own potential for visualization and memory.  All the greatest chess players have extraordinary memories.  Magnus was said to have all the countries of the world, including capitals and populations, memorized as a child.   Kasparov's memory is so good that he refuses to talk about it because he doesn't want his talent to be pigeon-holed as something he was gifted with and didn't work to achieve.  Unfortunately you need to be blessed with talent to be have a great potential, and only with lots of dedication and hard work will you achieve your goals.  For the rest of us mortals, playing chess for fun is the best we can do.  

Come again?!? You need to be blessed with talent and only hard work will achieve your goals?!? Is that one statement? 

Practically speaking even if you have the talent to be the best player that will ever live, without the right resources and exposure to the right things you'll never be able to realize this potential anyway. In my view the average player has so many practical problems in their way that philosophical discussions on the matter are just the icing on the cake when it comes to questions of mastering chess.

 

Uhhh, yes?  You think Magnus Carlsen was 2800 when he was 6 years old?  You need talent AND work to get to the top in anything.  Maybe I worded it sloppily, I'm pretty damn tired and about to go sleep, but my point remains the same.  

There are 2 types of people based on genetics. The quick learner and the slow learner. Both are borned without tslent, skill, or knowledge. The quick learner got the advantage at the young age. If both are equally hardworking, supported inspired by immediate family and close teachers and coaches. The quick learner would even widen the talent, skills, knowledge gap over the slow learner. If the slow learner got more suppoft, inspiration to work harder, he could narrow the gap and even surpass the quivk learner. By teenzge or young adult age, he is no longer a slow learner.