15 ( +1 | -1 ) GM talent or practiceTo become a GM does it take a lot of talent or a lot of practice? Is it a question of 10% talent and 90% practice, if so can this talentless player become a GM with lots of practice?
21 ( +1 | -1 ) .Assuming that this person had reasonable intelligence, I think that even if he had small natural affinity for the game he could become a GM. Talent never comes without work though.
51 ( +1 | -1 ) bothMy country has only ever produced one GM. There are many very talented and hard practising players here but it takes more than that I think. Our one GM had to leave New Zealand while in his teens and travel to England to live there so he could get opportunities to compete at the level needed to achieve the GM norms. It takes total dedication, enormous talent, and vast amounts of hard work. Thank goodness these days the financial rewards can do a lot to make such effort whorthwhile.
53 ( +1 | -1 ) Not enough with bothHard work and some talent is required, that is for shure, but sometimes it is not enough. as muppyman pointed out in his example of New Zealand -- you need strong opposition to play against. I also would like to point out that the infrastructure is required -- chess clubs, chess schools, that prepare that decent opposition, good coaches etc. It takes a lot of time and money to produce a GM. His own work and talent is not enough, unless he is simply a genius.
92 ( +1 | -1 ) just thought about this one:'Chess you don't learn ... chess you understand!' from Viktor Korchnoi, the oldest active GM in the world (born 1931)
If some one is interrested: Korchnoi reached the Candidates Final, the match to determine the next challenger to Bobby Fischer scheduled for 1975. His opponent was Anatoly Karpov. It was during this match that an often repeated story occurred: Korchnoi got up from the board during one of the games, walked over to the arbiter and, showing a surprising ignornace of the rules, asked whether he could legally castle in the current position. He wanted to castle queenside, but his rook was being attacked by a bishop, and apparently he didn't know if he could castle if the rook was under attack. The arbiter informed him that he could, and the game continued.
Now the question is, after 30 years playing chess, practice should tell you how to castle or not? So, I think it's talent and practice helps
128 ( +1 | -1 ) AgreedI agree 100 percent with Kai Sim in his last sentence. It's talent, and practice helps. Bobby Fischer did not win the US championship at age 14 because he had outpracticed all the older GMs in his brief 7 year chess career (beginning at age 7). All the young chess prodigies that have shown such remarkable skill, from Capablanca to present day, do not attain such results on practice alone. In fact some may not even practice any more thoroughly or work harder than an average player that is just trying to improve his or her game. Talent can not be learned or practiced. I once heard a smart baseball friend commenting about a certain popular strikeout pitcher. The pitcher had very poor work ethics but was successful nonetheless. My friend always said ... "The one thing you can't teach is how to throw a 100 mph fastball". As for the Korchnoi story. It may well be that Korchnoi queried the arbiter because it was Karpov that didn't know the rule, and complained about the move. I have known masters that are not aware that you "CAN" castle your rook out of attack in that situation. If anyone here would admit it, I would imagine there are plenty of strong players here that have that same misconception. I was one of them (not strong, just unaware).