they're completely fascinating. i suspect there's some truth to his hypothesis that nurture vastly outweighs nature in its impact on things like 'talent' and 'genius', although the way he obsessively set out to prove it is pretty nuts. the most interesting thing about it is how happy they seem to be though - i guess having a clear path drawn for you and being equipped with the tools to navigate it must erase a lot of the anxiety that regular folks struggle with (on the flipside it may also prevent them from experiencing anything like the same diverse range of life's flavours - excuse the cheesy turn of phrase). while i'm sure a lot of humanists would decry their upbringing as depriving them of agency, i've never really bought into the idea of 'agency' and i'm not convinced said upbringing is that different to anybody else's in that regard - we're all 'brainwashed' by the conditions into which we're born and raised, it's just that the objective of their brainwashing is narrow and consciously shaped.
funnily enough, i never got chess coaching or really played it at all as a kid except occasionally with my grandad. i found it fun but never really cared about it or studied it. i joined the school chess club and we generally just fucked around playing games, didn't learn a great deal although it was practice i suppose. then i randomly entered a tournament as an 8 year old, won it, ended up on the county team a couple of years later. still didn't care, still never really studied it, my upbringing never prepared me to be a chess player in any specific way. in a more general sense i was extremely gifted with the fundamentals of literacy and numeracy etc so i probably had some 'transferrable skills' that i unknowingly applied? and i suppose it's possible that those transferrable skills were acquired more through nurture than nature? i couldn't possibly say, but it's interesting to think about.