Steph Curry obvious has gobs of talent in shooting 3s and other offensive basketball skills. Do I know what specific factors make that talent? No. But can I say unequivocally, without a doub that they have 'superhuman' gifts of talent for their respective fields?
I have to agree with some (many?) other people here. Without a definition of what "talent" means, it sounds to me you're just replacing the end result (what they become in the end) to means "talent". For all we know, that "talent" could just come by as a results of a lot of dedication and hard work, something that can be trained and taught, and not anything intrinsic in their genes or DNA. (Note that for the purpose of the argument here, there are only 2 sides: either it's via practice and training, something innate like genes and DNA. Here I assume by "talent", you mean something by nature, i.e. the latter).
So again, how do you know Stephen Curry isn't that way because of the extra training he has? Remember that up until 2 years ago, he wasn't so good (although his DNA has always been the same). He was good, but just about as good as any other NBA player. Perhaps in the last 2 years, he got extra training? A very good coach that understands his strengths and weaknesses? He got a good psychologist? In any case, we know it's something external, something in the environment, and not something he's always had within his DNA. That will also explain why most other NBA players are not as good as he is. Maybe they don't have a good suitable personal coach? Or some good personal psychologist who can unblock that mental block in each and everyone of us?
If we keep using the end result to mean something intrinsic by nature, then the ramification can be wild. Think about industrial output. Taking a whole people into consideration, nowadays we know an average German will be vastly more efficient and productive than an average Chinese or African (the difference in output will easily be comparable to, if not more than, the difference between Curry and the rest of the NBA field). Using your logic, should we say the German race has a better "talent" for work than Chinese or people from Africa? Which is exactly what "Mein Kampf" tried to argue, isn't it?
Talent does become harder to tease apart the older you get.
Magnus and Judit though? NO QUESTION talent. You will NEVER get a 5-6 year old to play like Judit or even remotely close to them, no matter how many resources you throw at them, without extreme talent.
Steph Curry is an adult, so I could see how it's easier for folks to say "well, MAYBE he really does have some special training method - you don't know!", and sure I don't, but odds are he doesn't. His results are so extreme and basketball is so well penetrated, that odds are much, much, much more likely that he is so much better than his peers largely due to talent (innate ability) rather than him just out-training everyone else. (He obviously had gobs of good shooting training as well in his past - that alone won't make you steph curry.)
And you're analogies with the 'whole people into consideration' have NOTHING to do with my conversations thus far. I've NEVER been talking about averages or large groups.
This whole discussion I've been having has been centered on the singular talent of the Polgar sisters, and why I think genetics (not training) accounts for their unique results at world-class performance. I have no idea how you go from there to generalizing about an entire population, which is the complete opposite of the singular situation we're talking about.
When it comes to WORLD CLASS PERFORMANCE in well-penetrated activities (like basketball and likely even chess), you absolutely can ascribe level of excellence to talent as opposed to saying it's more training. At the world class level, you are by definition referring to a level of performance so unreachable that even with a huge number of people dedicating their lives to being the best at it (think of all the kids trying to be Jordan and LeBron) that virtually nobody will achieve it, even with maximal effort and maximal resources devoted to it. At that level, talent absolutely dominates.
For non-world class level, it would be an error to make the conclusion that talent accounts for most of the good results, since hard work can often outweigh talent at non-world class (and especially amateur) levels, but once you're in world class territory, you're so advanced that no coach can reproducibly create those results, even with 'talented' individuals to work with. YOu need RARE talent to get there.
"Do I know what specific factors make that talent? No. But can I say unequivocally, without a doub that they have 'superhuman' gifts of talent for their respective fields? Hell yes."
Well, I mean, I think there is some equivocation going on, at least. Whenever you call something superhuman you make it a lot harder to figure out what we're really talking about. We don't really have access to what they worked on, how hard they worked -- hell for all we know, Magnus's pre-chess activities could have prepared him for chess. How much of the "talent" is chess specific, how much of it is just determination (because determination can be innate to some extent)... I mean there are plenty of sources of equivocation, here.
It seems pretty unlikely that Magnus is "just like us" or something... on the other hand, that doesn't mean we suddenly know any decent amount about what talent is, it just means, it seems like Magnus has a lot of talent. Well, if we have nothing else, that's something to go by, but it is what it is -- something completely wrong could seem like it was right to us, so one just has to accept the limitations of going by our instincts, and our unbelievable love of attaching the adjective "superhuman" to things that are at a much higher level than us.
Dude - if anyone question's Magnus's talent at chess, they need to get themselves checked out. NOBODY can teach that ability at that age.
He's of course one of the most extreme outliers in talent.
Believe it or not, I'm personally NOT a believer in my fate being largely determined by my talent. I do have some definite talents, but they're mostly not in areas that I work in (and chess is definitely NOT an area I have talent in!) so I'm ALL about hard work and always have been.
But you're fooling yourself if you want to try and rationalize that Magnus had some special training that made him the way he was, or that Steph Curry has some secret special training method that allows him to be the world's best shooter.
Training works hellaciously well to get to "good", and even "oustanding" competence. You don't have a sliver of a chance despite all the best training in the world to get to "world champion" at a well established activity without the talent to take you there in addition to the training.
BIG difference between world-champion level ability (which is our Polgar sister discussion level of chess) and simply 'oustanding' ability, which I do believe is eminently trainable, even for those with middling talent.