10,000 hour rule DEBUNKED

No adypady02, that's like 3,7xx or so. Question is does that mean you had more talent or cognitive ability than the average joe? I don't think you can give an exact hour of study/practice to be good at something like chess for example. For one mastery of chess isn't set in stone, chess evolves and what it took to be a good player back in the 1800's isn't what it took in the mid 1900's and surely not today. I think it's more practical to say that chess mastery takes a lot of diligent study and practice, the amount will vary by individual.

Are you talking about USCF "Expert" class? That is an arbitrary title for the rating of 2000-2200 and not necessarily what is meant by "expertise." Of course, one of the major problems here is that "expertise" is impossible to objectively define. I'm sure people would argue, though, that the 10,000 hour whateverthing would be referring more to GM/SuperGM -- those who are at the top of their field.

I think the 10,000 would apply to reach GM level

http://chess-teacher.com/1632.html

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.

Some may argue that you still have not achieved the status of "expert."  :-)

I think that Gladwell would argue that GM status would be considered the minimum for designation as a chess "expert."

i just read several articles about the Hambrick study, and in my view, the study actually supports the 10,000 hour rule rather than refutes it.  Notably, the observations on the hours of practice that it took to achieve GM status are summarized:

They also found wide variability in the hours of practice. Chess grand masters had put in from 832 to 24,284 hours of work, although the average was around 10,530 hours. Musicians' efforts ranged from 10,000 to 30,000 hours.

Ericson's study (of violinists), on which Gladwell based his 10,000 hour rule, also showed that it took an **average** of 10,000 hours.  His sample also showed some variability among subjects in terms of number of hours of deliberate practice, with many acheiving expert level performance in less than 10,000 hours.  Indeed, Ericson has already responded publicly to the Hambrick study and noted that he never stated that 10,000 was a minimum but rather an average, which is exacly what the Hambrick study shows.

The other conclusions of the Hambrick study (e.g., practice only accounting for 30% of the success of chess players) also does not conflict with Ericson's work and conclusions.  Ericson (and Gladwell) never stated that talent, luck, etc were irrelevant and that only practice was necessary to achieve greatness -- merely that talent alone is insufficient without practice.

That's about 942 hours

No, that's about 942 days. About 3768 hours.

wow me criticiseing a NM at chess.com, guess it has to be a first for everything. 

but "anyone who have to call themselves king, is no true king"

I have not seen any of your games, still I trust chess.com and belive you are kind of good. But Gladwell wrote a whole book about why you are not an expert. please read it before proclaiming yourself one.  -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outliers_(book)

Rebacca black is today a multy million dollar artist. What are you telling me I can not do?

The abstract makes clear two things:

1) It is a literature review, and

2) the authors are confused regarding the dfinition of deliberate practice

I only played at first children and then adults. Had 2 or 3 books. Way less than 3,000 hours and it was not study. There were little or no study materials back then. The first rated game I ever played, I beat an expert.  

 Now you have chess mentor and thousands of books and study materials.

A whole lot depends on your love of the game and your competitive nature.

"The first rated game I ever played, I beat an expert. "

I almost read that as "The first game I ever played." Now that would be something!

The thing is that the abstract is not even giving a clear view of what the conclusion is.

If some abstract claims that "eating 100g or more of yoghurt daily increases your risk of infarctus by X%" I know what the claim is, even if the study might just be lousy statistics and correlation confused with causation.

To have too many sources to learn from is actually the problem today.

at the time I really wanted to learn I got read some from this book and from 10 other books. after that look at 50 different videos all telling some pieces of knowledge.

Until one person told me "stick to one book and don't look at other information until you have read the book and understood it".

I don't personally agree with it.  Some things you simply need deliberate practice on in order to be good since one isn't simply born with the requisite technical knowledge.  Some innate qualities aid it sure (the only kids under 10 and over 1800 FIDE are prodigies) but if one practices enough they develop habits and weed out bad ones.   Chess is mostly habits with some thinking.

Beat me to it -_-

I've been playing competively for a little more than a year, rarely studied, and am already 1642. I'm not sure how long it will take to become "Expert" however I'm sure 10,000 hours of "intense study" is unrealistic.

Like some already mentioned the 10k hour theory of expertise would probably apply to a Grandmaster level in chess. I'm not sure how long every Grandmaster has studied but I'd bet it would be closer to the 10k hour theory than not (not saying that validate's the theory).

bobbyDK

To stick to one book until you understand it is counter productive for new players as for 99% of the books available they will never completely understand.

Better to be guided as I am guessing chess mentor does. 

Having  many sources to learn is very helpful [not some kind of problem]

Your problem was not having too many resources, your problem was apparently not picking the right resources.