"Because if not, you're kind of disproving yourself. Of course genetics can assist you in becoming a good chess player..." I don't understand how I'm disprovin

"Because if not, you're kind of disproving yourself. Of course genetics can assist you in becoming a good chess player..." I don't understand how I'm disproving myself. I was trying to disprove Ericsson's claim that genetics play basically no role in successful performance, and I think my examples adequately illustrate that in at least some cases it actually does play a very large role. The fact that no one is a great chess player with no practice is irrelevant. As you acknowledge that genetics can help with chess, it seems you actually agree with my point over Ericsson's.