[jacobolus]

The basic principles are not a great mystery; actually implementing them is hard though. The best ways we know take a lot of time and dedication (e.g. hours per day of 1:1 or 1:few full-attention effort from an adult tutor who is both a subject expert and an expert teacher), more than we’re usually willing or able to spend on a child. Take a look at the Polgar sisters.

[armitron]

The Polgar sisters are not geniuses in any general sense of that word.

Interesting enough as that "experiment" may have been, it only proved that certain persons of a certain background that includes genetic history unknown to us, can reach high degrees of competence in one __specialized__ field. Chess is also particularly well-coordinated with years of repetitive practice and dedication, but genius? I think not.

You could replace chess with playing the piano even, and the outcome would be the same.

[jacobolus]

After having interacted with many people who were called “geniuses” in various settings (e.g. Nobel Prize winners, Fields medalists, best-selling novelists, at least a half dozen MacArthur “genius” grant recipients ...), I don’t consider “genius in any general sense” to be a real thing. YMMV.

[armitron]

Look at my previous post for a definition of genius that makes more sense and a possible explanation for its current debasement.