4 ms·

This is the kind of claim that needs actual evidence, otherwise it's just a dumb feel-good sentiment about how you _could_ be 2000 ELO on lichess if you cared.

by voxl 3y ago

This is the kind of claim that needs actual evidence, otherwise it's just a dumb feel-good sentiment about how you _could_ be 2000 ELO on lichess if you cared. I tend to agree that with enough time and _appropriate_ training anyone can become quite competent at anything, but this is a significantly different claim than thinking you can be in the 95th percentile of persons who are engaged in the activity. It becomes even worse when you realize that technical activities (such as programming) where there are cash incentives are a lot different than recreational activities where the only incentive is to have fun. There is an incentive to _not_ improve at a recreational activity and outpace your friends.

tgv 3y ago
> I tend to agree that with enough time and _appropriate_ training anyone can become quite competent at anything It's something I don't believe. There's no evidence for it, but that would also be really hard to obtain. You'll get better with training, practice, exercise, but quite competent is a level very many people won't be able to manage. Physical competence is an obvious case. Roughly half the population is too young or too old to become e.g. a "quite competent" marathon runner, has ailments, handicaps, etc. An even larger part simply is not tall enough to reach beyond than absolute amateur level in certain sports (basketball, volleyball). And the differences don't magically stop at the blood-brain barrier. I agree that more than 5% of the population could achieve the level currently held by the top 5%, but it's not a lot more.
empath-nirvana 3y ago
> how you _could_ be 2000 ELO on lichess if you cared. I would argue that being top 2000 ELO is _way_ higher than top 5% of chess players. Most chess players have _never played a competitive game_
- voxl 3y ago
  Rapid rating 95th percentile is 2050 (info is available on lichess)

by voxl 3y ago

tgv 3y ago

> I tend to agree that with enough time and _appropriate_ training anyone can become quite competent at anything It's something I don't believe. There's no evidence for it, but that would also be really hard to obtain. You'll get better with training, practice, exercise, but quite competent is a level very many people won't be able to manage. Physical competence is an obvious case. Roughly half the population is too young or too old to become e.g. a "quite competent" marathon runner, has ailments, handicaps, etc. An even larger part simply is not tall enough to reach beyond than absolute amateur level in certain sports (basketball, volleyball). And the differences don't magically stop at the blood-brain barrier. I agree that more than 5% of the population could achieve the level currently held by the top 5%, but it's not a lot more.

empath-nirvana 3y ago

> how you _could_ be 2000 ELO on lichess if you cared. I would argue that being top 2000 ELO is _way_ higher than top 5% of chess players. Most chess players have _never played a competitive game_

voxl 3y ago
Rapid rating 95th percentile is 2050 (info is available on lichess)