newest studies of psychology in the field of expertise suggest that there is no such thing as "talent". it's about creating the right mental representations through concious learning. learning out of the comfort zone and getting feedback (from a trainer or stronger players) to learn from mistakes and invest hours of work to study the right material for every new level which you reach through improvement. So a lot of factors like trainer, tournaments, working ethics, mental state are decisive.
HOW TO BECAME A INTERNATIONAL MASTER IN TWO(2) YEARS.
Sort:
fun
I don't buy that. Take Mozart. Take Capablanca. Take Pelé. Examples abound.
It's also true that generally speaking, the Psychologist isn't the most talented of the bunch... these people simply get jealous and then "prove" that talent does not exist. That's my Psychological theory for today...
By the way - knowing how to do those things that you describe, and doing them, and doing them well - is quite a talent in itself.
"... In a recently published issue of the journal 'Intelligence' there were numerous studies, analysis, and pieces on the 10,000hr rule. In particular, one study by David Hambrick and colleagues entitled “Deliberate practice: Is that all it takes to become an expert”, sought out to 'test Ericsson’s claim that "individual differences in ultimate performance can largely be accounted for by differential amounts of past and current levels of practice.' As a refresher, Ericsson was the original researcher who developed and then publicized the concepts, which then took off with Gladwell’s Outliers, Geoffrey Colvin’s Talent is Overrated, Daniel Coyle’s The Talent Code, and numerous others who jumped on the bandwagon with their own spin.
In there research Hambrick reanalyzed 12 studies looking at expert performance in chess and music. Similar to Ericsson’s original work, they simply looked at hours of deliberate practice for each and compared it to performance levels along their development. In the chess studies, they found that deliberate practice explained 34% of the variance in performance, and therefore 66% unexplained. Looking at the individual numbers is even more staggering. There were some people who had over 20,000 hours of deliberate practice yet never went beyond Intermediate, the lowest of the three levels (intermediate, expert, and master). Perhaps most striking, was the range of “masters” was 832 hours to 24,284hrs to reach mastery.
When looking at Music, the results were very similar. 29.9% of the variance in performance was explained by amount of deliberate practice.
The whole study is worth a read as it delves into intelligence, personality, and other factors related to reaching 'expertise.' However, the take away to me is simply common sense. Does practice make you better? Of course it does, but it isn’t the be all end all. And you know what, neither is genetics. ..."
http://www.scienceofrunning.com/2014/03/why-gladwells-10000-rule-is-just-plain.html
What a great crap that is..."IM in 2 years", IM Andrew Martin will killl u.... ;-)
7 years of studying (I am so dumb) that didn't even cross 1800 yet.... so God bless those who want to become an IM by studying chess in 2 years, that guy must easy atleast cross 2000+Elo on chess.com when he/she first tries their hands on chess with little or no study. .... then the above goal setting can be true.... But believe me chess is f**c%i#g difficult game!!