Yes
Does the Peter Principle apply to chess players?
Sort:
Only if you're retarded or just don't care about improving.
I think we do reach our " ceiling " in chess and I think I reached mine some years back . Along the way I have also hit " walls " that took special effort to progress beyond . Most chess players I know have had the same experience .
The key word here is "eventually". Given enough time we would all perfect our memory of openings, tactics, etc and there would be no room for variation from the "best" moves. Precisely what makes a great chess player is that ability to go beyond learned wisdom and try something new.
The peter principle only applies to measurments that are discrete. So, the question really is "is improvement in chess discrete or continuous?" For if we improve in a smooth continuous way, I would believe that we will approach our level of incompetence, but never quite get there.
Dec 21, 2014
0
#7
I sincerely believe that no player need feel or believe him- or herself to be held down or stifled by some imaginary limit, ceiling, cap, etc. The potential of each individual is entirely up to that individual.
Dec 21, 2014
0
#8
@chessmicky: In physical terms, limitations are more obvious and apparent. However, in terms of intelligence, who can say how we are limited? Until made plain to me, I must believe that limits are mostly imagined.
We are limited by the following factors:
1). lifespan
2). belief
3). desire (and willingness to sacrifice non-chess related things if necessary)
4). amount of time spent playing and studying
5). the biological limits of human memory and pattern recognition
Dec 21, 2014
0
#10
It's at that stage Mersaphe that I think we have to face our limitations. We have to accept that we have arrived at our "best" and just put up with it!
Visualising becomes harder with age. For the rest most chessplayers make the mistake of reading a lot of chessbooks and trying to applying all these things they learn at the same time. Instead of making the correct move, they make a twenty minute thought and still play the correct move after that but the thought process going through this move is muddled with all this extra information.
It's a common bias for people, thinking that more knowledge about a position leads to better decision making.
Here in Spain, you don't need even to do job X well to promote, having good friends is enough. Maybe necessary.
I have a friend who is currently taking lessons from an International Master and hopes to achieve USCF master in a short period of time. He believes anyone can become a master without any special talent. He lives and breathes chess and certainly has the drive to make his goal possible.
There are really two classes of chess players. There are those who enjoy playing it on the weekend or casually among friends and there are those who are obsessed with climbing to the top. If anyone wishes to achieve master level chess he must dedicate hours upon hours of study and make chess a huge part of his life and even then I believe without some natural talent that individual will be woefully disappointed.
Dec 23, 2014
0
#16
Are you saying that if I study 24/7, play chess from morning to night time and have coaching from experts non stop then I might be a grandmaster. Not possible! My brain isn't wired that way. We only have so much potential in any given area, that applies to all of us. A talent in a particular field is also necessary, I totally believe in this. Some people are born with a talent for chess, others of us will always be mediocre players at best! I mean that in comparison to a GM!
Someone once wrote about Bob Dylan, "How is it possible to play the harmonica for forty years and show no improvement?" so can this principle apply to chess players. Do we eventually reach our level of incompetence, and no further improvement is possible.