tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post8400431635753041335..comments2024-01-04T04:11:55.717+02:00Comments on Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog: Mastery through practice, but not for allDienekeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-78267671368715380692011-10-28T00:30:08.984+03:002011-10-28T00:30:08.984+03:00.."There is a theory in psychology that the m....."There is a theory in psychology that the more you practice, the better you'll do in areas like sports, music, and chess. 'But the thing is, of the people that achieved the master level, there are people that achieved it in 3,000 hours. Other people did, like, 30,000 hours and achieved the same level. And there are even people that practiced more than 30,000 hours and didn't achieve this.'"<br /><br />All true. But what I found missing in their accounting was "preference", "desire", "fascination". The champion of "anything" no doubt exhibits the same learning and skill characteristics as the Chess Master, as well as the same drives to become a Master of Whatever; the essential difference is the unique, indivdual, preference - desire- fascination (aka - Drives). Time to master, when ability is equal, often best reflects the varence in the primary drive of desire. True?Pascvakshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08311382875179534062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-33769361869800488092011-10-25T20:04:18.591+03:002011-10-25T20:04:18.591+03:00Chess, like other long-studied subjects, has an en...Chess, like other long-studied subjects, has an enormous literature, the distilled wisdom of centuries. So, it's not only how much you practice, but _what_ you study. <br /><br />For example, one could play 100 bishop+knight+king vs. king endgames and never really learn how to win them. Or, he could read how to win them (learn theory), play half a dozen for practice, and then win every single time.<br /><br />So, people with the same hours of practice achieve different results both because of differences in innate ability, but also because of differences in _what_ they practice. <br /><br />It is sometimes said that an average player of today could stand their own against masters of the 18th and 19th centuries, not because they are smarter, or because they have practiced more, but simply because they've learned a lot of theory that was simply unknown a hundred years ago.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-11952002856699204942011-10-25T17:47:52.701+03:002011-10-25T17:47:52.701+03:00I started playing chess about five years ago. I pl...I started playing chess about five years ago. I play every day on my computer, and I’m not all that great. I suspect it’s a lot like language: start early.Glenn Allen Nolenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08981085942334968662noreply@blogger.com