how much of chess is natural talent

what i mean is......there are guys out there that study there butts off.... but not everyone that studies alot is going to be a kasparov or a carlsen.... or a top rated super GM......

how much of chess is natural ability..... there are tons of chess masters out there, that probably study just as much as magnus carlsen, but not as good as him.....

The real question to your question is, what do you mean by "how much"? Are you seriously asking for a quantity? 

well i mean someone can study much more then magnus, but there not going to be able to compete with him on the board

It could be that no one studies as much as Magnus, or that nobody studies in the same way as Magnus, or that Magnus is not as distracted as everyone else while they're studying or playing in a tournament? Maybe Magnus doesn't have some additional "natural talent", but instead he just doesn't have as much in his head as other players do?

true.... but i think someone like magnus is born with some form of natural ability that 1 in a million chess players don't have

well..that'd be a  unending debate if you are looking for the "how much" part...

natural talent is very broad in my personal point of view.. in this post.. magnus carlsen is mentioned.. if we'll use him as our point of reference....

what natural talent are you talking about?

is it magnus' incredible intuition or his deep analytical ability?

these can be called natural talents... but they can be taught to other people.. one just needs the proper guidance and "pressure" to acquire this..

i'll concur that most of GM's have the so-called "natural talent"... but not all..

We can say that having an opponent w/ these talents put you in the disadvantage but it's not the "decisive" factor in the game...

you may beat him by having deeper understanding in the tactical/positional parts in the game.. or maybe through proper consolidation ad mobility of pices than him..

you dont need natural talent in those... it takes time ad patience to master them..

what i'll advice is that "natural talent" as a factor in Chess is probable.. but it'll just put a lot more pressure in you if you'll put that in mind... it'll just make you err more.. so just relax.. :))

hope this helped..

Seems like most people agree with you, superking500. But I've always been confused about "natural talent" when it relates to chess. I don't want to assume it without questioning it.

im just amazed how magnus is so god damm good at chess.... its freaking unbelivable.

I want to see how he does in the candidates tournament. The last one all the favorites lost.

well magnus wasn't all "high and mighty" when he started playing as a GM.. he had also some "ups and downs" He lost to many tournaments before reaching to the top.. 

what I can say was Magnus was intensively trained... he was trained since he started to excel in chess.. even kasparov became his trainer for a while... dont you think that this is where his talents are shaped and fully realized??

there maybe hundreds of players there that can be as strong or even stronger than carlsen or on any other famous chess players.. but what makes them reach the top and become even more stronger is because they were properly guided.. you cant learn chess alone.. you need someone who can teach you if what you're thinking was wrong or right..

I've said much on the forums about the nature vs nurture debate, but I want to make a more general point here. Be careful when making an assumption based on the fact that you can't explain it -- for example "I don't understand how someone could be this good -- therefore it's talent," or "I can not account for this particular sound made in my house; therefore, it's a ghost, as it couldn't be anything else."

What you should appreciate is that sometimes humans don't know the answer to things -- it shouldn't startle you. It took a while for us to figure out why we have lightning or snow -- before that people called those things mystical too, e.g., Jesus and his angels bowling that made the sound of lightning. That example might put things into terms little kids could understand, but that doesn't mean it's a valid answer.

It could very well turn out that Carlsen's seemingly mystical ability might be explained in rational, concrete terms in a few centuries.

When confronted with something that is not fully understood, a human has two choices: either put it into terms he understands ("magical ability"), making a rather strong assumption that his terms contain the keys to all understanding; or, he can consider the possibility that any explanation one attempts is not likely to be accurate due to current human limitations, although with the advances of science it might some day become possible. I do the latter.

I'd say its probably a bit of nature, with a lot of nurture.

In the same way as some people are born taller, shorter, blonde, with a disability, fatter, thinner (in very simplistic terms)..... It stands to reason that not all brains are identical at birth either.

If we consider that not all brains are identical, some must be more conducive to certain things than others. I wouldn't call it a 'talent for chess', that type, or other types, of brain could be optimal for a number of different activities. The nurture comes in when parents, teachers etc realise that and determine how best to make the most of it. In my opinion, that is far more important than the nature aspect.

As for Carlsen, it seems obvious that he had a bit of something extra from an early age. In an interview on 60 minutes, his dad said that he knew the capital city and population of every country on earth at 5 years old. Now, i dont have kids but, However you look at it, that's not 'normal'.

Obviously some people have said that he may have autistic tendencies, which may explain that to a certain extent, however the same 'our brains are different' argument still stands. If everything is different, something has to come out ahead of the pack in different activities. The person who has an optimal brain for chess, may be horrible at other activities as a result.

I think elubas has radically underestimated the bowling ability of early christian thinkers

Well, I could memorize an entire coupon book when I was three.

Also: talent being biological does not necessarily turn on the idea that it is magical

also also: rationality is the enemy of science. Science/Empiricists observe. Rationalists think in their armchairs. They are like two bullies in a playground of reason.

It doesn't, but that's not what I was addressing -- I'm saying more that if you are arguing for talent or the absence of it, you should not do so solely because it's the only thing that is understandable to you.

 I think a person ought to have science and rationality. I think Isaac Newton is an example of a brilliant man who, when he couldn't explain a certain idea in physics, concluded, therefore, God must play a role. He knew his science but in terms of his reaction to his ignorance, I don't think that was appropriate.

Elubas, I want you to read this paper (http://www.academia.edu/620080/Why_bother_with_reflective_equilibrium) and write a report for me. It is due tomorrow morning! gogogo.

Still, for whatever reason, they were at quite different strengths.

2 becoming GM and 1 an IM (or WGM)

Despite the same education, Judit came out on top by a mile. Does this maybe also prove that 'nature' plays a part as well?

So, to become good you need study, training and 'nurture' but to break into that elite top tier, 'nature' plays it's part.

I think that they started earlier with Judit, was probably easiest to let her join when the others got training.

I think there is a huge difference in effective training and less effective training, and once you have bad habits / bad intuition in chess it's nearly impossible to get rid of. So the top players not only had all the good habits trained into them, they also avoided ever getting any of the bad thinking lower rated players have.

Which is also why it is so important to have a good trainer from early on.

Example: studying opening theory at low levels is a good way to get to a roadblock in your chess development early.