10,000 hour rule DEBUNKED

A new study is saying that only 20 to 25 percent of chess skill comes from practice the rest is all talent.

Here is the paper: http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/06/30/0956797614535810.abstract

Looks like we can study all we want but we're still gonna suck.

this does not debunk the 10 000 hour rule. 

the 10 000 hour rule says how long time you will have to train before you become an expert. If I have no talent, but still work 10 000 hours I would be an expert and know enough to write a book. That does not mean I have to be a GM same way as a good football coach does not have to be good at playing football. ¨

you need three things to achive sucsess. Tallent, Practis and Luck. You dont need all of them in the same amount, but if you lack one you fail. 

You misunderstand what the 10,000 hour rule is.  It says that in order to be successful in your field you must practice that much.  Being an expert on something is not the same as achieving success.

This new study shows that practice doesn't have nearly as much influence as Malcom Gladwell and his followers claim.

If that's really what the 10,000 hour rule is, which I doubt, then the 10,000 rule is completely stupid. Every field is different, and success could be defined in a million different ways. Does it take 10,000 hours to be "successful" at chopping wood or mowing the grass? What about setting up a successful business?

Nah, I believe "expertise" is a much better outcome for the "10,000 hour rule." Even still, the rule suffers a lot of flaws, but much less than if we used it to define or predict "success."

I don't think it's a "rule".

Let's get one thing straight. The 10,000 hour rule is only referring to 10,000 hours of DELIBERATE PRACTICE. Deliberate practice is a very specific thing, and very few actually partake in it. Just because you read a chess book or do tactics problems or study games or work with a coach or whatever else, if you are not doing it in a very specific way, then that time doesn't count as deliberate practice.

Further, the "10,000" is not a hard number for every field. Some fields, like chess or athletics, are extrememly competitive, so maybe it takes the full 10,000 hours or maybe it's 15,000. Other fields have almost no competition. If you just work at some generic office job where you sit in a cubicle, your coworkers are almost certainly spending exactly zero hours on deliberate practice toward improving their ability at their job. That is low hanging fruit. You will probably be the top performer in your office if you just spend 20 hours engaged in real deliberate practice.

read the book null chiper. '

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

the logic goes as follows, to be sucsessfull you need to be an expert to become an expert you need to praktis 10 000 hours. Nowhere does it say that praktising 10 000 hours makes you sucsesfull. What it does say is that without praktising 10 000 hours you can not be sucsessfull. 

And for only $35 I could read the newly published paper. Oh well.

Which paper?

the paper who debunks the 10 000 houre rule, suposedly

Of course, though, it is not good logic. You can be successful without being an expert. You can also be an expert with far less than 10,000 hours. Depending on the person and field, you can be an expert from anywhere between 1 - infinite hours. Also success and expertise can be defined in many different ways (if at all). Thus rendering the premise pointless and useless.

This is from 2 of the same authors and it was presented after the article (20 june 2014):

https://www.msu.edu/~ema/HambrickEtAlFrontiers.pdf

The reason why they have come up with that conclusion is that they didn't do their research for 10,000 hrs...that's your problem right there...

a work week is 37 hours in denmark, that means you have to study chess 5 years full time if you have to study 10000 hours.

I doubt that anyone with a job can ever study 10000 hours.

Thanks for the link, I will check it out.

Don't tell me you only read the abstract. I don't care what your view is, but if you don't even look into how the study was done (only read the abstract), or for example look at what criteria is used to come with the percentages, that's just a naive way of forming an opinion.

The 10000 rule may itself be naive, but it mostly depends on how you reach your opinion. You can have naive believers in it and naive disbelievers in it.

So, an arbitrary time limit is somehow refuted. Breaking news!

And of course, considering the abstract (I am not gonna pay $35 for that), which I reproduce below:

...it could mean anything until you read the paper. "Explain 26% of the variance" is not well-defined by this abstract alone.

For instance, I am willing to bet that moon cycles plus murder rate plus average age of first-born son plus number of days in the year "explain" more than 26% of the variation of total number of worked hours for a 100-dates sample in New York, in the sense that some multi-variable correlation coefficient reaches 0.26 or more, but that's just a kitchen sink regression.

Moreover, correlation coefficients have some significant defects. From http://blogperso.univ-rennes1.fr/arthur.charpentier/index.php/post/2009/05/21/Le-prochain-qui-me-parle-du-R2. I got the following pictures about the most widely-used correlation coefficient:

I think we can agree that the red line is not a good representation of the data (green points) on example 2, whereas it is reasonable for example 3. Yet the R^2 correlation coefficient is 64% for ex.2 and 50% for ex.3 - simply because ex.3 is so much more noisy.

Now, imagine that the data of 1/3 is rating vs. time of play in hours, one point per player...

You're not playing the right players then. :)

+1

Becoming convinced of a study's conclusion without reviewing the study itself is, at best, risky. At worst, it could be dangerously wrong.

Well, I imagine, like a lot of beliefs about chess, this is another one of those things that has changed since the internet came along.