Originally posted by RamnedOk,2 games of 1.5 hour then.Finding some middle ground 😉
I recognize the strength of playing as allowing you to put your new-found knowledge into work. However, if you play alot more than you study; say you play all day for 5 days and study once that week, then you are not maximizing how much you can apply in your games. When I play 1 game every 2 days - a full length game - I play it as OTB and try to apply what I ...[text shortened]... l, but practice is necessary to develop the talent. No such thing as being born a grandmaster.
To clarify I didn't mean one should play nothing but 1 hour games.Just when time is an issue I believe it's better to play more games with shorter TC's.If you have plenty of time then play longer TC's,of course.
I certainly do not advocate to play 5 days a week and study only 1 day.One should study and play every day.But I would put more time into the playing.
'practice is necessary to develop the talent'
Agreed 100%
erikido
What did Kasparov mean by '50 games a year'?
Does that include practice games?Games with a coach?Blitz?Only serious tournament games?Internet games?
I do not believe Kasparov played no more than 50 games a year when he was young.Even if he did I think he'd be an exception.Also,Carlsen is already a strong GM (or did Kasparov tell him when he was still a,relative,low rated,but promising,kid?.I was talking more when on the road to grandmastership.
This 10,000 hours thing is reminiscent of Malcolm Gladwells half baked twaddle. It sort of seems right but then again who has ever done 10,000 hours of serious work at something they're crap at to prove it wrong.
Anish Girl is the worlds youngest grandmaster at 14. That would be 2.7 hours a day since the
age of 4 without a day off. Theoretically possible but unlikely.
Still - looks like my kids are heading for mastery of the playstation
Good research project on yourself though - keep us posted.
2 edits
Originally posted by Mahout10,000 hours is degroot's result originally I think. it's been verified since, and as far as we know it applies to all areas of expertise, not only chess. music for one. and from engineering and project management I've seen similar results. there's nothing half baked about it.
This 10,000 hours thing is reminiscent of Malcolm Gladwells half baked twaddle. It sort of seems right but then again who has ever done 10,000 hours of serious work at something they're crap at to prove it wrong.
Anish Girl is the worlds youngest grandmaster at 14. That would be 2.7 hours a day since the
age of 4 without a day off. Theoretically possible ...[text shortened]... ng for mastery of the playstation
Good research project on yourself though - keep us posted.
most GMs of which I've seen any kind of documentation on the early study habits, have trained exactly as what you see as unlikely. usually they've started 4-6 years old, and been put on a steady study diet soon after that. there's nothing accidental about them becoming masters in their teens.
carlsen studied 4h a day as I remember.
Originally posted by RomanticusI believe it was in the book the chess instructor that the quote was. I will have to take a look later
Ok,2 games of 1.5 hour then.Finding some middle ground 😉
To clarify I didn't mean one should play nothing but 1 hour games.Just when time is an issue I believe it's better to play more games with shorter TC's.If you have plenty of time then play longer TC's,of course.
I certainly do not advocate to play 5 days a week and study only 1 day.One should s ...[text shortened]... ve,low rated,but promising,kid?.I was talking more when on the road to grandmastership.
Originally posted by wormwoodI think I'll try to study 4h a day from now on including a couple of games on ICC and/or FICS. I'll have to cut down on posting in the forums here though, which I know will be a terrible loss to many here.😕
10,000 hours is degroot's result originally I think. it's been verified since, and as far as we know it applies to all areas of expertise, not only chess. music for one. and from engineering and project management I've seen similar results. there's nothing half baked about it.
most GMs of which I've seen any kind of documentation on the early study habit ...[text shortened]... al about them becoming masters in their teens.
carlsen studied 4h a day as I remember.
1 edit
A question of the 10,000 hours, did you simply take that from the book Outliers, by Malcolm Gladwell? If so, it might be good to site it to the book. Also, as advice, I think Outliers would be an amazing book to read for the drive of chess. Although the book is NOT centered upon chess as a subject, you can learn many things that can help you force yourself to study chess as well as learn some basics on the human brain. Many things can indirectly influence your chess play, and learning new things is always a plus!
-Rb
Edit: Oops, looks like someone already beat me to saying its Malcolm Gladwell's idea.
1 edit
But isn't the 10,000 hours only part of the equation. A prerequisite maybe, but not the only
factor. Are there not people who have put in the hours but not achieved? Football might be worth
considering as there's a lot of kids putting in the hours but only very few ever make the
premiership or it's equivalent. Of the thousands of kids who make the academies I heard it's only
3 or 4 go all the way and get taken on by one of the big clubs. Surely they must have had there
equivalents in terms of hours of practice and a host of other factors but they were just better.
This is not to deny that 10,000 hours of proper study would not improve your game.
Originally posted by MahoutAs said by Gladwell, in the beginning, select few, the biggest kids get chosen to be in the little kid leagues, which means they got extra practice etc. Why are they bigger? They were born at the beginning of the year. Much is the same to chess players. When young players begin chess, the people who could beat their peers with advantages such as being slightly older, parents, or any other thing that could tip the game, were more likely to stick to chess, and advance.
But isn't the 10,000 hours only part of the equation. A prerequisite maybe, but not the only
factor. Are there not people who have put in the hours but not achieved? Football might be worth
considering as there's a lot of kids putting in the hours but only very few ever make the
premiership or it's equivalent. Of the thousands of kids who make the academ ...[text shortened]... etter.
This is not to deny that 10,000 hours of proper study would not improve your game.
Originally posted by MahoutHere's some roadblocks that make the 10,000 hours difficult to achieve:
But isn't the 10,000 hours only part of the equation. A prerequisite maybe, but not the only
factor. Are there not people who have put in the hours but not achieved? Football might be worth
considering as there's a lot of kids putting in the hours but only very few ever make the
premiership or it's equivalent. Of the thousands of kids who make the academ ...[text shortened]... etter.
This is not to deny that 10,000 hours of proper study would not improve your game.
Parents supporting your passion vs parents ignoring one's passion
Over-practicing (leading to burnout)
You have other hobbies, commitments, etc.
You simply like to play at the game rather than practice it.
Originally posted by no1marauderI find it's very hard for me to get even 1h of daily study in nowadays, I just seem to have other things to do all the time. no doubt it's a motivation problem though. I wish I still had the energy to pull off 4-5h a day, but I simply don't have it. I don't expect improvement either unless I shape up...
I think I'll try to study 4h a day from now on including a couple of games on ICC and/or FICS. I'll have to cut down on posting in the forums here though, which I know will be a terrible loss to many here.😕
I remember ronen har-zvi talking about the teenage GM phenomenom during some ICC tournament relay, and he thought it was pretty much like outlined here. except that he seemed to think 5-8h a day to be quite average for the young masters, and that he knew himself many who did a lot more. I can't even begin to guess what kind of feverish burn to get better such dedication takes. I simply lack that kind of drive. I should probably waste less energy here as well...
1 edit
Originally posted by Mahout'deliberate practice' is a psychology term focusing exactly on that, in contrast to even decades of 'idling' without improvement on your selected area of expertise. the latter has also been well documented.
But isn't the 10,000 hours only part of the equation. A prerequisite maybe, but not the only
factor. Are there not people who have put in the hours but not achieved? Football might be worth
considering as there's a lot of kids putting in the hours but only very few ever make the
premiership or it's equivalent. Of the thousands of kids who make the academ etter.
This is not to deny that 10,000 hours of proper study would not improve your game.
just go google 'expert performance psychology' or something like that, and you'll get all the studies you could ever want. in addition to the de groot classics, k.a. ericsson has also loads of extremely relevant studies on expertise.
like this one on talent:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/files/u81/Ericsson__Roring__and_Nandagopal__2007_.pdf
here's a snippet on memory:
"In this paper we will approach the issues of gifts and innate talent a little
differently. Rather than create new definitions and global theories, we apply the
analytical methods of the expert performance approach and focus on the empirical
evidence for reproducibly superior performance. Given that this framework differs
from the traditional studies of giftedness, we will briefly sketch the development of
the expert performance approach. The first author initially encountered the issues of
giftedness in his studies on exceptional memory, where there is an extensive body
of research on individuals with ‘gifted’ memory. Many years ago, Bill Chase and
the first author (Ericsson et al., 1980) tried to replicate an early study where several
students were able to double their performance on a test of short-term memory with
a few weeks of practice. They invited a college student (SF) to engage in memory
practice for a few hours per week. Before the start of training SF could recall around
seven presented digits—the typical performance for college students (Miller, 1956).
After several hundred hours of practice he dramatically exceeded the original target
of doubling his memory performance and was able to perfectly recall over 80
presented digits—an enormous improvement of performance corresponding to an
effect size of over 70 standard deviations. These large training effects on memory
performance have been replicated many times with many participants in several
independent laboratories (see Wilding & Valentine, 1997, 2006; Ericsson, 2003a).
These studies demonstrated that individuals can increase their memory
performance by orders of magnitude through training (without any changes in their
DNA), and that the levels of post-training performance dramatically surpassed levels
of many individuals thought to possess innately superior memory in earlier studies
(Ericsson, 1985). Such findings question whether innate gifts or talents are required
for an individual to reach the levels of memory skill that were initially considered
extraordinary by early researchers (e.g., Luria, 1986, first published 1968). In
addition, the trained students exhibited several other observable characteristics of
allegedly exceptional individuals, such as flexible retrieval of the memorized
information (see Ericsson & Chase, 1982). Furthermore, the encoding and retrieval
mechanisms acquired by the students were investigated and experimentally validated
as mediating the superior performance (Ericsson, 1988, 2004)."
Originally posted by wormwoodyup...the greats ALL have that desire in every sport, game etc.
I find it's very hard for me to get even 1h of daily study in nowadays, I just seem to have other things to do all the time. no doubt it's a motivation problem though. I wish I still had the energy to pull off 4-5h a day, but I simply don't have it. I don't expect improvement either unless I shape up...
I remember ronen har-zvi talking about the teenage ...[text shortened]... akes. I simply lack that kind of drive. I should probably waste less energy here as well...
There is this pool player (corey deul)that has this soft break in 9ball that he consistenly pockets the one in the side and everything else just seems to move to where it is a duck(for a proffessional at least). I was just talking to somebody who said they watched him before a tournament-before he even hit a ball he was practicing his break for 25 mins. Adjusting where he was breaking from until he made a ball every time. Once he found his spot then he started warming up.
I have also heard stories of guys that would just spend hours on end racking the balls and breaking racking and breaking.
I think the key is not only having a great desire to get better. BUt, actually enjoying the process. I used to detest studying. But, now I recognize it not only as a learning process. But, also as being able to see many different beautiful ideas(which I can hopefully absorb)
1 edit
Originally posted by erikidoyeah, definitely. motivation, enjoyment and improvement always go hand in hand.
yup...the greats ALL have that desire in every sport, game etc.
There is this pool player (corey deul)that has this soft break in 9ball that he consistenly pockets the one in the side and everything else just seems to move to where it is a duck(for a proffessional at least). I was just talking to somebody who said they watched him before a tournament-bef ...[text shortened]... ss. But, also as being able to see many different beautiful ideas(which I can hopefully absorb)
I've seen hundreds of crying children dragged to their piano/violin lessons year after year by their parents. none of them ever made it past the beginner stage. the few kids who actually liked music got much better quite quickly. even the 80-year-old granny improved much faster than the unwilling students.