If you just play a game once in awhile, you probably will......
I'm not sure if that formula works. I played a lot of basketball and never was good at it nor did I ever improve.
Ohhh! Time for a cool lesson in logic and conditional statements :) [amature philosopher at work...]
There's two kinds of conditional statements. Kind 1, something is a necessary condition. For example, it is necessary for a car to have loads of horsepower for it to be fast. Kind 2, something is a sufficient condition. For example, it is sufficient for a car to be a formula 1 racecar for it to be fast.
His statement is that not playing much chess is a sufficient condition for probably sucking. The negative corollary statment that logically follows is that playing lots of chess is necessary but perhaps not sufficient condition for probably not sucking. In other words, it says that with little practice you'll probably suck, but doesn't say anything about how you'll be if you practice a lot :o.
O.K. I think I follow. 
Let's start with this as a working premise: People who don't practice chess will always suck at chess. 
Now we can narrow it down to those poor souls who practice day and night. 
1. You can practice day and night and still suck at chess if you don't practice correctly, i.e., memorize ALL of the ECO main lines/variations and still lose every gane because you don't know why 1.e4 is even considered a good first move!
2. You can practice day and night, but sadly lack the whatever brain power/aptitude/natural ability it takes to play the game without sucking.
My conclusion: Those who wish to not suck at chess should first check to make sure to not be in category one or two - or both!
How is my logic, professor? 
Ah, common Natalia. Why did you post this face?