How long does it take to "get good"?

@Snow_Lion said in #122:
> 10,000 hours to master a skill.

I agree. I don't think there is any difference between mastering chess and mastering other skills.

The 10,000 hours rule has been somewhat debunked (google "10,000 hours to master"), but the idea is to have 10,000 hours of "deliberate practice". Once you hit that threshold, you'll get additional improvement by having someone tutor you or by using some other form of assistance.

Has anyone considered that your brain has a finite capacity? Perhaps those curves level off because your brain simply can't hold enough information to reach higher ratings. In other words, you are trading learning one thing for another in a limited space.

It would be interesting to see the person's background vs. rating. Are the higher ratings because the person prioritizes chess over learning other things? For example, it's more important to memorize opening moves vs. the weekly grocery list.

The study is biased because it only studied active players. If inactive players (with valid ratings) were added to the study, would it impact the curves?

Disclaimer: I have a technical background and view this from the perspective of an engineer studying system performance.

If inactive players (with valid ratings) were added to the study, would it impact the curves?

umm.... going from 1100 to 2000 doesn't make you a prodigy, there are hundreds of players who do that on lichess.

Some people just probably go for a quick chess game not for win, it is a kind of entertainement. Just a suggestion: improvement rate may collerate with the numbers of analyis after games (active learning).

@Rookie_Balboa said in #8:
> Liking the you play and thinks it nice. Thats an explanation of what a good player is, only yourself decides what is a good player.
> Rating doesent mean anything sometimes,
@Rookie_Balboa said in #8:
> Liking the you play and thinks it nice. Thats an explanation of what a good player is, only yourself decides what is a good player.
> Rating doesent mean anything sometimes,
Yes

I figured out you can massively speed up your rating gain if you invest money and take lessons from a GM.

And then chess makes more fun :-)

Is it lichess rating or FIDE/USCF's?

I guess on lichess it is lichess rating

It's highly individual.

This type of 'research' is useless.

I noticed I peaked in playing strength after 10 years of playing, although I started in an era where there was no online resources and if you wanted to "get good" the only option was book learning (which, lets face it, very few people can stomach reading chess notation) but when chesstempo started doing their online puzzles in 2008 I would do tactics for an hour every day and my play massively improved so I feel that timeframe can be significantly reduced with the resources available online today.

Do's :
Learn a couple of openings for white and black
Do lots of tactic puzzles - you will notice lots of themes recurring and this will help your middlegame
Practice rook endgame - they are very common and are worth investing time in

Dont:
Take everything engines say for granted - they might know how to win with insane tactics but more often then not you will not see what they see and it will negatively impact your attitude to the game
Think you need to learn every opening to move 25 - unless you are a world class GM it is unlikely you will possibly retain that much information accurately
Play bullet and expect to learn anything - bullet might be fun, but it is too fast for the brain to retain any of the moves you played so you wont make progress.