Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

10,000 hour rule DEBUNKED


  • 5 weeks ago · Quote · #61

    samky01

    It discredits itself by not defining how good 10,000 hours will make you, and wasn't rigorously tested across even a few disciplines (IIRC).  It even seems to be written in a "take this with a grain of salt" tone.  When the claim boils down to "lots of practice will make you better" there's no need for anyone to debunk anything.

  • 5 weeks ago · Quote · #62

    samky01

    pt22064 wrote:

    I think most people misunderstand or at least misstate Gladwell's "rule."  He indicated that the minimum amount of time for anyone to become a true expert in any subject is 10,000 hours of serious study.  This does not mean, as some people assume/assert, that studying a topic for 10,000 hours will definitely make you an expert.  You need some innate talent/intelligence as well.  The main point is that notwithstanding all the stories of natural prodigies, even the most gifted have to spend the time to practice their craft.

    So 10,000 is neither necessary nor sufficient.  It's just that practice is guaranteed to make you better.

    lol

    Here's the real story:  ridiculous claims are guaranteed to sell your book.

  • 5 weeks ago · Quote · #64

    samky01

    adypady02 wrote:
    I became an expert after 2 years and 7 months and practicing about 4 hours a day on average. Pretty sure that's not 10,000 hours.

    How long after that to reach NM?

  • 5 weeks ago · Quote · #65

    Elubas

    "So 10,000 is neither necessary nor sufficient.  It's just that practice is guaranteed to make you better."

    He's more likely to be claiming that 10,000 is necessary, but not sufficient. But of course it's hard to imagine such a specific number as 10,000 would apply everywhere. But even a Carlsen, for example... I don't see him being GM in his first 10 hours of playing, in fact he would probably be pretty bad after just 10 hours. He simply was the kind of person who could benefit from all that encoding of patterns, and for that it's hard to get around obnoxiously large amounts of study. We are not engines, of course, but just pure thought without patterns, in a game with so many possibilities, is terribly slow, even if that thought is really clever.

    To believe the ideas above does not commit one to accept everyone who puts in the hours. It just means to refuse everyone who does not.

  • 5 weeks ago · Quote · #66

    Irontiger

    DrCheckevertim wrote:
    Ziryab wrote:

    Actually, the research shows that is takes 10,478 hours, 16 minutes, and 21 seconds. For each point over 120 a person's IQ, ten hours and seven minutes can be subtracted.

    Naturally, the researchers rounded down to reach an easy to remember number since most people, especially those with advanced degrees in psychology, have IQs below 110. 

    Careful, or people might begin repeating this so much that it will become a fact.

    Honestly... I wouldn't be too surprised if some scientific "study" actually did claim this, or at least some pop science magazine interpreted a study this way. (...).

  • 5 weeks ago · Quote · #67

    With_every_step

    Elubas wrote:

    We are not engines, of course, but just pure thought without patterns, in a game with so many possibilities, is terribly slow, even if that thought is really clever.

     Chess is not philosophy. Philosophy is a universal ability which allows for understanding positions.

  • 5 weeks ago · Quote · #68

    Elubas

    Now clever thought plus lots of patterns, that's a potent combination.

  • 5 weeks ago · Quote · #69

    DrCheckevertim

    TheGreatOogieBoogie wrote:
    DrCheckevertim wrote:

    Careful, or people might begin repeating this so much that it will become a fact.

    Honestly... I wouldn't be too surprised if some scientific "study" actually did claim this, or at least some pop science magazine interpreted a study this way. People would believe it. PhDs at education schools would probably even quote it over and over again. A carefully crafted scientific "study" can "prove" anything to most people.

     

    Facts by their nature are independent of human agreement.  The Earth is around 4.2 billion years old and just because ancient Greeks thought it was mere hundreds of thousands didn't change that fact.

    You took what I said too literally.

  • 5 weeks ago · Quote · #70

    With_every_step

    Elubas wrote:

    Now clever thought plus lots of patterns, that's a potent combination.

    This is True.

  • 5 weeks ago · Quote · #71

    DrCheckevertim

    Irontiger wrote:
    [science news cycle pic]

    Yeah. Laughing

  • 5 weeks ago · Quote · #72

    samky01

    Elubas wrote:

    "So 10,000 is neither necessary nor sufficient.  It's just that practice is guaranteed to make you better."

    He's more likely to be claiming that 10,000 is necessary, but not sufficient. But of course it's hard to imagine such a specific number as 10,000 would apply everywhere. But even a Carlsen, for example... I don't see him being GM in his first 10 hours of playing, in fact he would probably be pretty bad after just 10 hours. He simply was the kind of person who could benefit from all that encoding of patterns, and for that it's hard to get around obnoxiously large amounts of study. We are not engines, of course, but just pure thought without patterns, in a game with so many possibilities, is terribly slow, even if that thought is really clever.

    To believe the ideas above does not commit one to accept everyone who puts in the hours. It just means to refuse everyone who does not.

    Yes, necessary but not sufficient as long as you remember (as pt22064 said): "notwithstanding all the stories of natural prodigies"

    Of course Carlsen didn't become an "expert" without practice.

  • 5 weeks ago · Quote · #73

    Elubas

    Actually that "notwithstanding all the stories of natural prodigies" is a bit odd (I missed it) because it does seem to go against the very point he was trying to make.

    Anyway I do believe in "necessary but not sufficient" here, although I don't necessarily have a precise number like "10000" in mind. But it's a number large enough (a decent amount of thousands), that it's just not the kind of thing you can do overnight but have to keep at it very consistently.

    In other words, it's not like how a smart person may be able to cram for an exam without knowing much about the topic prior. Such a hope is laughable for something like chess, no matter how smart you are.

  • 5 weeks ago · Quote · #74

    samky01

    Elubas wrote:

    Actually that "notwithstanding all the stories of natural prodigies" is a bit odd (I missed it) because it does seem to go against the very point he was trying to make.

    Anyway I do believe in "necessary but not sufficient" here, although I don't necessarily have a precise number like "10000" in mind. But it's a number large enough (a decent amount of thousands), that it's just not the kind of thing you can do overnight but have to keep at it very consistently.

    In other words, it's not like how a smart person may be able to cram for an exam without knowing much about the topic prior. Such a hope is laughable for something like chess, no matter how smart you are.

    I agree.  I would destroy any current / former world champ if I could go back in time when they'd only been playing a year (hopefully a year isn't enough for them ;)

    It always takes work.


Back to Top

Post your reply: