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.
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. -
By expert I mean USCF 2000. To be an "expert" in the "field" of chess is probably GM.
How long after that to reach NM?
"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.
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. (...).
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.
Now clever thought plus lots of patterns, that's a potent combination.
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.
This is True.
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.
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.