lichess.org
Donate

What “Talent” Actually Means in Chess (It’s Not What You Think)

'I have only one talent: a talent for hard work' - Kasparov

'The boy (then a 12 year old boy named Anatoly Karpov) doesn't have a clue about Chess, and there's no future at all for him in this profession' - Botvinnik

'I have only one talent: a talent for hard work' - Kasparov 'The boy (then a 12 year old boy named Anatoly Karpov) doesn't have a clue about Chess, and there's no future at all for him in this profession' - Botvinnik

Trust Kasparov to think like a philosopher but not act like one
one of the goat's

Trust Kasparov to think like a philosopher but not act like one one of the goat's

I've concluded roughly the same. A few years ago I read "Talent is overrated", by Geoffrey Colvin. In several answers on quora I give talent approx. 5 or max 10% credit for results. Sometimes it's just good timing, or your opponent has a worse day than you. Sure, talent makes you progress quicker, or deeper, but then it's all work. ( I read early by age of 4, and read everything I came by. When I've read all my books, I started reading my dads books.)

I've concluded roughly the same. A few years ago I read "Talent is overrated", by Geoffrey Colvin. In several answers on quora I give talent approx. 5 or max 10% credit for results. Sometimes it's just good timing, or your opponent has a worse day than you. Sure, talent makes you progress quicker, or deeper, but then it's all work. ( I read early by age of 4, and read everything I came by. When I've read all my books, I started reading my dads books.)

Putting in the work is good and all.... only if it is the right kind of work. I'd love to see a post about this.

Putting in the work is good and all.... only if it is the right kind of work. I'd love to see a post about this.

Love it

I've seen this argument done to death - that talent is nothing without hard work. But hearing you expand on why children seem better capable of capitalizing on that talent, as well as a point-by-point walk through of each section where a player doubts themselves, alongside the dessert of your admission to being talented yet not working hard enough to go higher in rating - all very comforting to read. I feel this article sheds insight for people in all improvable hobbies, as well as properly invites the reminder, we don't have to be the best. But if we want to be better, we shouldn't assume we've already hit our ceiling, unless-

well, yeah. how does a hobbyist know when they've hit their personal ceiling within a craft?

Love it I've seen this argument done to death - that talent is nothing without hard work. But hearing you expand on why children seem better capable of capitalizing on that talent, as well as a point-by-point walk through of each section where a player doubts themselves, alongside the dessert of your admission to being talented yet not working hard enough to go higher in rating - all very comforting to read. I feel this article sheds insight for people in all improvable hobbies, as well as properly invites the reminder, we don't *have* to be the best. But if we want to be better, we shouldn't assume we've already hit our ceiling, unless- well, yeah. how *does* a hobbyist know when they've hit their personal ceiling within a craft?

Some say freestyle favors talent. I think it's nonsense. Skill is positively correlated with talent. And we kind of proved that by drawing Magnus in freestyle and losing to Levy in chess as the world team.

Some say freestyle favors talent. I think it's nonsense. Skill is positively correlated with talent. And we kind of proved that by drawing Magnus in freestyle and losing to Levy in chess as the world team.

Basically, what I've concluded is: Talent doesn't affect your progression, but, how fast you progress.
So, it doesn't let you progress. You can progress without talent. But, if you play for 5 hours a day, and, a talented player plays for 5 hours a day. The talented player will become better faster.

But that doesn't mean that the un-talented player won't eventually reach the same level as the talented player, it will just take more time.

But, if there is an Un-Talented player who trains for 5 hours a day.
And a talented player who plays for 3 hours a day.
The un-talented player will eventually become better that the talented player.

Do you agree? Or was I wrong with this conclusion?

Basically, what I've concluded is: Talent doesn't affect your progression, but, how fast you progress. So, it doesn't let you progress. You can progress without talent. But, if you play for 5 hours a day, and, a talented player plays for 5 hours a day. The talented player will become better faster. But that doesn't mean that the un-talented player won't eventually reach the same level as the talented player, it will just take more time. But, if there is an Un-Talented player who trains for 5 hours a day. And a talented player who plays for 3 hours a day. The un-talented player will eventually become better that the talented player. Do you agree? Or was I wrong with this conclusion?