the Polgar experiment actually disproves the hard work theory

I think an idea to keep in mind is that, our mind needs to be able to sort out the good info from the bad to do anything well. There is basically a limitless amount of possibilities in anything you do, and you have to narrow down the good things to do not by chance, but through pattern recognition. Chess has zillions of possibilities, but in a sense, so does a sport. You can run fast, slow, run in a certain direction versus another, you can hit the ball one way, or another, you have to react to dozens of different situations very quickly, there's long term strategy, short term strategy... basically, a ton of possibilities as to what you can do, and you have to narrow them down.

I think it's pretty clear that even when there are a ton of possibilities in a game, it doesn't mean a human can't get really good at it and have it make sense -- it's not done by memorizing every single detail, but by developing enough interrelated patterns that it turns into a sort of system for figuring out the right idea in almost any position or situation. And that kind of interrelation of patterns seems like it's a universal thing in any discipline. I've sure noticed it. When I've gotten good at things other than chess, it's the same idea of, first having no idea how to process all the info in front of you, and now, I can figure out what I should do by referencing some patterns I understand. Same sort of process that I've certainly experienced myself.

That might be why that 10,000 hour figure keeps coming up. Yes, every discipline is different, but that sort of state of mind you have to get into to develop a fundamental system for limiting the limitless possibilities, that may well remain the same.

That figure is always qualified, of course, by the idea that the practice has to be of a sufficient quality. It seems like some people just really don't like that argument. Perhaps because there's some subjectivity in what is "high quality" training? Be that as it may, I think it's pretty clear that there has to be something substantial done in training, else people could just stare at a chess board for 5 hours and call that study. It seems pretty reasonable to say that you have to actually be engaged in what you're doing -- it seems reasonable to assume that, if I told you to study tactics for 2 hours, I would want you to actually think about the tactics, rather than passively look at them.

So yeah, while one can't draw an exact line regarding what is 100% perfect practice, it seems pretty clear to me, anyway, why it's so important to distinguish different types of practice. Practice is really just the means of allowing the brain to develop the patterns -- if you just pretend to practice without actually engaging the brain, the practice lost its point and doesn't help you. So the idea of what is good practice itself becomes a huge focal point of this kind of discussion. It taps into what the brain really needs to grow.

So you disagree with 80% or am I misunderstanding you?

Ah yes, I know about that. Just didn't pick up on it here :)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GrmhcpoM1EU

There's a link to a video on Judit polgar. Early on they say that Susan has stated that sofia was actually the most inherently gifted but Judit was the one with the passion to work hard on chess, hence why she became the strongest player of the 3.

The Polgar experiment tells us nothing either way.

The three girls are related and had similar (but not identical training) so we still do not know whether it was their genetic endowment or the training that was most important, or whether both "talent" and intense training are needed.

The whole experiment was flawed.  There was no control group.  We have no idea how someone that was not genetically related to the sisters would have developed given the same training.

If Mr. and Mrs. Polgar had adopted some children and given them the same training as the 3 sisters then it might have told us something, although  it would still not be justified to make any definite conclusions. [Sample size too small and too many confounding, uncontrolled variables].

You would have thought that, before choosing to dedicate many hears to the experiment, they'd have done some research on designing a useful one.

Or Judit was more talented. Talent is important, obviously. Hard work is important, obviously. The experiment actually didn't prove or disprove anything.

Or maybe Judit was just able to focus more exclusively on chess. Susan had to fight a lot of social/political battles that Judit didn't (because Susan had already fought them).

hard work isn't something everyone is capable of

I don't see why the ability to focus and put in effort the desire.. I believe it's refered to as passion

isn't seen as a talent

"it's not the hours you put in its what you put in the hours"

"it's not the hours you put in its what you put in the hours"

Just ask any tennis parent whether the Williams sisters are proof that hard work is the sole reason for success.

A reasonable argument would be, for example, that the Polgars share genetics... not that one of them is better than the others, that's just silly.

Not statistically very smart to use just a single case that's a huge outlier and unreplicated.

Isn't that kind of the point? The Polgars are a single case that's a huge outlier.

Or, perhaps both cases are examples of genetics combining with hard work to create champions. In which case, they aren't outliers.

Well I don't know what your point is, then. I'm just saying that looking at an outlier rather than the overall trend will give you a very misleading picture.

Are there or have there been any brothers that are both GMs, by the way? I can think of another two sisters who are both GMs, not any brothers, though.

All three of them are. Judit has one of the highest IQ's in the world (170 ish?). You think her sisters are floatin around with the rest of us at 120-130?

Well IQ as the basis of your argument is a bit iffy to me.