Who do you think is a chess genius?

@Wittke Philidor was the first to "see" the value in pawns, and in pawn play. Before him, gambit openings were the order of the day. As he said..."Pawns are the soul of the game" His pawn studies revolutionized chess. He was also one of the first of the blindfold players. A remarkable individual! :]

@Skittle-Head Agreed, definitely a pioneer of the modern game, along with Steinitz.

@Wittke yess!! There are those who have studied the game very much at a young age like Kasparov and Carlsen, but some just have rhe innate talent to bring magic to the board! Of course, this isn't saying those who worked hard aren't amazing chess players cause in fact, hard work beats talent in most times. But there are some things, even in chess, that you just can't teach!

@Dameneinsteller774
I'd agree that Anand is the most debatable of the four I mentioned. This was based on the fact that he was producing some really mind-boggling stuff at a young age without taking too much time during his games. Have a look at some of his most famous wins, it's really worthwhile! Historically, his competition might not have been the strongest when he was WC, but he was battling Karpov and Kasparov amongst others during the late 80's and 90's. His natural talent is of course coupled with extensive work and incredible preparation, as seen again recently in his win against Nepo.

@Wittke I would argue that Morphy and Capablanca were chess geniuses, as Morphy simply played extraordinary well for his time, and Capablanca as he simply had a natural talent for chess, and swept the chess scene from winning his first major tournament of San Sebastian in 1911(which interestingly enough Nimzowitsch was against his participation as no-one really knew him back in Europe at the time) , not mentioning crushing Marshall in their first match a few years earlier, and also defeating his home countries champion at the age of 12. I may be a bit biased about the Capablanca bit though, as he is my favorite player

Vachier-Lagrave perhaps ? The story is that he learned chess at 4-5 (?) years old against an electronic chessboard and beat one level each day. I think the equivalent of level max was some kind of 1800 elo. So 1800 elo in one week without any chessclub training, it's some kind of genius.

Kasparov knew how to play chess better than he's father when he was 4 years and without any chess teachin or tuching the pieces, just by looking its father playing.

All the players that becames GrandMasters before 16 years, could they also be considers as chess genius ?

Of course it depends of what we call genius : Some great players gives to us some great legacies on some aspects of the game : Philidor (Pawns are the soul of chess) Morphy (attacking art), Tal (dubtious sacrifices and complex positions), Capablanca (positionnal mastering), Alekhine&Nimzowich (hypermodern chess opening's contribution), and I forget a lot of great contributors.

Maxime Vachier Lagrave is indeed quite impressive (getting his Gm title at the age of 15)
But what is a genius?
Is it someone who learned something very early (for example learning fractions at the age of 5), or is it someone who took a great step foward in one domain and managed to revolutionise it?

@The_Conquerer37331
"But what is a Genius?" Indeed, It could be the starting point of this subject. We can't tell who is a genius before according on what genius means. Then the question of who is or not is solved by itself.
Is a Genius the best player of the world ? The one who developp a way new to play ? A new winning way to play ? The one who could beat Alphazero ? etc. I think the question is quite open.