A long list of studies available here:
“For example, the critical difference between expert musicians differing in the level of attained solo performance concerned the amounts of time they had spent in solitary practice during their music development, which totaled around 10,000 hours by age 20 for the best experts, around 5,000 hours for the least accomplished expert musicians and only 2,000 hours for serious amateur pianists.”
http://www.psy.fsu.edu/faculty/ericsson/ericsson.exp.perf.html
A long list of studies available here:
“For example, the critical difference between expert musicians differing in the level of attained solo performance concerned the amounts of time they had spent in solitary practice during their music development, which totaled around 10,000 hours by age 20 for the best experts, around 5,000 hours for the least accomplished expert musicians and only 2,000 hours for serious amateur pianists.”
http://www.psy.fsu.edu/faculty/ericsson/ericsson.exp.perf.html
That just refutes what you said. That says that hours vary depending on what your doing. Besides, that's a study on music. What's that have to do with chess in china?
Oh good grief, please spare me this armchair-genius stuff. And namecalling I've found works pretty much everywhere btw. At any rate (if you really want to discuss this sort of windbag knowitall parascientific nonsense), goldendog's point hits it on the head: there is a big big big difference between saying that the truly accomplished put in some arbitrarily colossal number of hours to get where they are and that anyone can do it simply by logging the same amount of time.
I have no "hypotheses" or "theories" about it because I really don't have any idea how people get phenomenally good at something...any more than you do.
Or any more than the phenomenal people do I would suspect.
The N stands for Nautical.
The N stands for Nautical.
N for a natural master, as he only took 9997 hours of study to achieve it 
N for a natural master, as he only took 9997 hours of study to achieve it
I'm just quoting this to point out how awesome this comment is.
Your belief is not required, those are the numbers that have been consistently found through scientific study. It is also known as the 10,000 hour rule.
Sorry pal, but that's a load of crap.
Uh huh..... and your evidence is what?
Name calling may work in the school yard but I would hope you were planning on bringing more to the discussion. Even us hobbyists are hopping to get better at this game. Do you have some good studies to site? Can you site an alternative theory? Do you have your own hypothesis and suggested study?
Let it sink in...
Saw it, Since he never offered the total number of hours he has spent studying its not like he was trying to help.
To be fair to Nukiwaza, he has referenced a number of sources in making his 10,000 hour claim to mastery. Of course there is an element of approximation. E.g - I would really like to reach FM level if I can, better if possible. Some people can do this in maybe 4000 hours (e.g. Magnus Carlsen, Nigel Short etc all did). Others may take 12000 hours to reach the same level. I too have seen this in martial arts - where I am 'accomplished pro' level - I worked out that it took 9560 hours to reach this level (as I am a geek an log all my training in a book for many years).
Good luck on the road to improvement in Chess - we all need it.
Progress in Chess is slow. Learn the rules in 30 minutes, spend the rest of your life trying to master the game.
A definite love of the game is required to progress past a certain point, without that your just gonna get pissed off when you come up against a really strong player.
There is no way to know how strong you will or will not become based on some simple calculation of hours.
Here's my simple hypothesis -- there are three variables (not one!)
The variables are:
A) Time spent studying + games played
B) Quality/intensity of study (not all study is created equal! empty practice repeating the same mistakes and never really attacking one's weakness goes nowhere!)
C) Talent. (not all brains are created equally for chess)
And the formula is: A x B x C = acheived elo
(with minor tweaks for fighting spirit, creativity etc.)
It is very hard to make up for a deficit in talent -- trust me on this, I speak from experience.
Quality practice is a moving target. It evolves as one progresses. One needs either very good teachers, or the gift of self-teaching, which is VERY helpful (necessary even) for chess.
There are a few fields, Math, Music, Chess, where real prodigies emerge rarely, but regularly. In these fields it seems clear that achievement is a combination of talent + practice/effort, with a prejudice at the higher levels, on talent. In all these fields the highest achievements have come from people who had prodigy level ability to start with (and, in general, coupled it with a great deal of work).
If you have ever played a young person with real specific chess talent, say a 12 or 13 y.o. 2000+ uscf -- you'll see the terrifying thing that real chess talent is -- chess talent is the ability to calculate chess moves, quickly and clearly nothing more or less. But it's scary how fast talented players see the board.
How good can you get? Without knowing all three variables there's no way to say. Possibly very very good, possibly not at all good.
13 y.o. Botvinnik had been playing chess 3 years when he first beat Capablanca, (in a simul).
13 y.o. Carlsen was a GM.
JG27Pyth is 47, has played since he was 6, has put in many many thousands of hours and OTB is a weak class player. So, how stupid am I? Well too stupid to quit when I should -- but without discussing my specific IQ or standardized test scores like the SAT -- according to the tests it's fair to say I'm not stupid.
So, one more time. There's no way to know how good you will or will not become. You just have to try.
*edit* But, speaking of blind nuts and squirrels, yesterday, I found (in real time as the game was being played) the forced winning combination that eluded Carlsen in his game with Howell -- and I'm so freaking pleased with myself I can't get over it!!! (Yeah, I moved pieces on an analysis board -- what of it?)
There is no way to know how strong you will or will not become based on some simple calculation of hours.
Here's my simple hypothesis -- there are three variables (not one!)
The variables are:
A) Time spent studying + games played
B) Quality/intensity of study (not all study is created equal! empty practice repeating the same mistakes and never really attacking one's weakness goes nowhere!)
C) Talent. (not all brains are created equally for chess)
And the formula is: A x B x C = acheived elo
(with minor tweaks for fighting spirit, creativity etc.)
It is very hard to make up for a deficit in talent -- trust me on this, I speak from experience.
Quality practice is a moving target. It evolves as one progresses. One needs either very good teachers, or the gift of self-teaching, which is VERY helpful (necessary even) for chess.
There are a few fields, Math, Music, Chess, where real prodigies emerge rarely, but regularly. In these fields it seems clear that achievement is a combination of talent + practice/effort, with a prejudice at the higher levels, on talent. In all these fields the highest achievements have come from people who had prodigy level ability to start with (and, in general, coupled it with a great deal of work).
If you have ever played a young person with real specific chess talent, say a 12 or 13 y.o. 2000+ uscf -- you'll see the terrifying thing that real chess talent is -- chess talent is the ability to calculate chess moves, quickly and clearly nothing more or less. But it's scary how fast talented players see the board.
How good can you get? Without knowing all three variables there's no way to say. Possibly very very good, possibly not at all good.
13 y.o. Botvinnik had been playing chess 3 years when he first beat Capablanca, (in a simul).
13 y.o. Carlsen was a GM.
JG27Pyth is 47, has played since he was 6, has put in many many thousands of hours and OTB is a weak class player. So, how stupid am I? Well too stupid to quit when I should -- but without discussing my specific IQ or standardized test scores like the SAT -- according to the tests it's fair to say I'm not stupid.
So, one more time. There's no way to know how good you will or will not become. You just have to try.
*edit* But, speaking of blind nuts and squirrels, yesterday, I found (in real time as the game was being played) the forced winning combination that eluded Carlsen in his game with Howell -- and I'm so freaking pleased with myself I can't get over it!!! (Yeah, I moved pieces on an analysis board -- what of it?)
Yep. I think that's probably the most accurate response.
Expect nothing and just watch where your potential takes you...then you can tell us.
This is my approach. I play and read chess books to improve, but sometimes also just to have fun. For instance, I'm reading an opening book right now, even though I know tactics puzzles would be more productive towards making me a stronger player. But I'm enjoying the particular book I'm reading, so I want to read the whole thing, just for fun and to give me something new to try in my games. Studying whatever I feel like, and varying the routine regularly, I've gone from 1300's to 1700's (USCF) in two years, which is pretty good for an adult over 30.
At this point, I've played enough guys in the 1900's to see the difference in ability between them and myself, and to know that I can make up that difference and join them at that level. That's my goal. I haven't played enough guys over 2000 to know how much better they are than myself or the 1900's, so I don't know if I can ever reach that level. And until I reach 1900, I see no reason to care.
--Fromper
JG27Pyth, you have hit the nail squarely on the head.
I'm a musician and have practised for some massive amount of unknown hours over my lifetime. For the last load of years my practise time has either kept me at the same level or stopped me from slipping backwards any further. As you get better at any endeavour you need to practise more and more just to stay at the same level of achievement. This is also true of chess. Thus the 10,000 hour rule can only be a very vague guesstimate averaging an estimated number across an estimated sample size with no measure of the quality of the practise/study time therein. Therefore there are better things to put your trust in.
If you put in regular, quality study/playing time and mix it up, much like a balanced diet, then you will inevitably improve. As you improve you will see more and more areas for further improvement, you will refine and probably increase your study/playing time. You'll reach many plateaus along the way and, if you have the character to overcome these, you'll eventually reach your maximum level as defined by the amount of time/quality/talent equation.
JG27Pyth, you have hit the nail squarely on the head.
I'm a musician and have practised for some massive amount of unknown hours over my lifetime. For the last load of years my practise time has either kept me at the same level or stopped me from slipping backwards any further. As you get better at any endeavour you need to practise more and more just to stay at the same level of achievement. This is also true of chess. Thus the 10,000 hour rule can only be a very vague guesstimate averaging an estimated number across an estimated sample size with no measure of the quality of the practise/study time therein. Therefore there are better things to put your trust in.
If you put in regular, quality study/playing time and mix it up, much like a balanced diet, then you will inevitably improve. As you improve you will see more and more areas for further improvement, you will refine and probably increase your study/playing time. You'll reach many plateaus along the way and, if you have the character to overcome these, you'll eventually reach your maximum level as defined by the amount of time/quality/talent equation.
Chess and music study are closely related in my opinion. You can study scales and theory until you can copy any piece you like, but you will not become a master composer unless you have an ability to create. Same goes for chess. Study tactics and openings until the cows come home and it will not make you a master because there is no "White to move and win" heading during a game.
I agree with nukiwaza, you should go and practise for 10,000 hours.
lol. Hotflow...you're hilarious.
edwaxx...nicely put. I'm equally bad at music.
look over your own games thats the key to chess
Chess is like a SECOND language. You can learn a second language at the age of 40, but it will be INFINITELY more difficult than if you were 4.
If you started chess late in life, the odds are so small that you will make GM status as to NOT even matter. Don't even set your sights there, you will set yourself up for failure. It can be done, but so can matching 5 numbers out of 49 in the powerball lottery (80 million to 1).
Finally, there is a PREDETERMINED level that we can achieve before we even begin studying. Hard work alone is NOT enough to take you to the pinnacle. If hard work was all it took to become a great player, then EVERYONE would be doing it.
Take a look at Josh Waitzkin. He was a child chess PRODIGY winning numerous national titles. He lived and ate and breathed chess. It was his LIFE. He studied nearly every waking hour. Yet, still he failed to make GM status. Tell him that he didn't study hard enough and I think he give you a Kung FU chop to your cranium. He hit his proverbial CEILING. He could NOT achieve GM status no matter what.
Sorry to burst any bubbles. But I TELL it like it is.
Chess is like a SECOND language. You can learn a second language at the age of 40, but it will be INFINITELY more difficult than if you were 4.
If you started chess late in life, the odds are so small that you will make GM status as to NOT even matter. Don't even set your sights there, you will set yourself up for failure. It can be done, but so can matching 5 numbers out of 49 in the powerball lottery (80 million to 1).
Finally, there is a PREDETERMINED level that we can achieve before we even begin studying. Hard work alone is NOT enough to take you to the pinnacle. If hard work was all it took to become a great player, then EVERYONE would be doing it.
Take a look at Josh Waitzkin. He was a child chess PRODIGY winning numerous national titles. He lived and ate and breathed chess. It was his LIFE. He studied nearly every waking hour. Yet, still he failed to make GM status. Tell him that he didn't study hard enough and I think he give you a Kung FU chop to your cranium. He hit his proverbial CEILING. He could NOT achieve GM status no matter what.
Sorry to burst any bubbles. But I TELL it like it is.
While I agree with your point, your example is flawed. Waitzkin didn't become a GM because he quit chess before he got that far. If he'd stuck with it, I'm sure he would have reached GM level. Whether or not he could have been a top GM and contended for the world championship is something we'll will ever know.
--Fromper
Your belief is not required, those are the numbers that have been consistently found through scientific study. It is also known as the 10,000 hour rule.
Sorry pal, but that's a load of crap.
Uh huh..... and your evidence is what?
Name calling may work in the school yard but I would hope you were planning on bringing more to the discussion. Even us hobbyists are hopping to get better at this game. Do you have some good studies to site? Can you site an alternative theory? Do you have your own hypothesis and suggested study?