10,000 Hour Rule

In Outliers, Malcolm Gladwell presents the idea that, no matter what the human endeavor, you have to do something for 10,000 hours to become "world class." He specifically mentions chess but does not provide examples or specifics to back up his conclusion when it comes to chess. He does provide a lot of support for the number 10,000 in other fields - computer programming and playing the violin - and for the concept in general.

Am I an 1800 player on chess.com simply because I have never put in the 10,000 hours necessary to master chess and someone else is an international grandmaster because they have put in the 10,000 hours necessary to master chess?

Certainly, there are other factors involved in determining whether or not a person becomes "world class" at something but putting in the 10,000 hours is absolutely necessary according to Gladwell.

Do you agree?

Or what about the people that put in 20,000 hours and still stink at something?

Gladwell argues that even child prodigies need the 10,000 hour rule in order to get REALLY good at something. Mozart was considered a child prodigy but his best compositions were done after he had put in his 10,000 hours. Bobby Fischer was a chess child prodigy but didn't become world champion until he was an adult and had put in his 10,000 hours.

Fonix wrote:

Or what about the people that put in 20,000 hours and still stink at something?

You have to put the 10,000 hours in early in life. Bill Gates had his 10,000 hours of programming practice by the time he was college age. Concert violinist put in the 10,000 hours by the time they are young adults as well. They are practicing 30-40 hours a week or more.

Read the book - it's a good read - he makes a convincing case.

Even the Beatles didn't get really good until after they put in all those hours playing together in Hamburg.

It's not only 10,000 hours. its 10,000 hours of meaningful practice and a strong will to improve. mindlessly playing chess wont get u anywhere. I've around 1800 on chess.com too, and I've been playing chess for about a year and a half. lol! I wonder how many hours I have left before I can really play..

i think ive spent 10000 hours on the internet

10000 hours is about 5 years doing 40 hours/week.

Newton did his best on his youth, in a couple of years. I mastered tic tac toe in a few minutes. Andrew Wiles took more than a decade to prove the Fermat Theorem. The point is what is the "world class"?

A definition of 'world class' might be in order, of course. But the discussion point, as I see it, does not really revolve around cases of genius or trivial endeavors; it revolves around consequential endeavors by ordinary (or only slightly extraordinary) folk.

No, I don't buy into this notion, it doesn't hold up under examination.  The problem is, there's no good metric for "mastery" of the field.  Gladwell focused on world champions, but there are plenty of players who put in many more than 10,000 hours who never reach that pinnacle.  The GM title, conversely, or even an abstract "among the best" metric, have been attained by some with much less work -- Capablanca & Fischer, for example, were Top 10 in the world practically as soon as as they started playing.

If you describe the notion as that an individual person reaches the limit of their abilities in 10k hours, ok, maybe I could believe it.  But there's no way to apply that to any comparative measure between players, and the mark has no significance there.

10,000 hours of intense study may make you a master but 10,000 hours of playing blitz online and you're still just a patz.

I don't know about Capablanca but in Fischer's case that's gibberish.  He was known for intensive study, he probably spent more time studying before age 15 than many of the top players here.

i should be world class at doing the dishes by now :-(

10,000 hours is a lot of time. If someone started with an hour or two at age six, then progress to longer and longer periods of time - up to 30-40 hours a week by the time they were a teenager, they might make it.

The "world class" question above is a good one. By "world class" I would mean that you could be ranked in the top ten or twenty "players" at something in the world. Chess is only one field where you can discuss this idea of 10,000 hours. Do you think Michelangelo put in his 10,000 hours before painting the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel?

Didn't Micheal de la Maza write about this in Rapid Chess Improvement?  I think he discussed the same theory.

I'll have to check it out.

paulmont1

If you're really passionate about something, really passionate, you don't do it 40 hours a week, you do closer to 60 hours a week, sometimes more. That would mean about 3 years in order to master the discipline (if the "10,000 hours" rule applies).

The counter-example of Tic-Tac-Toe does indicate that this should be taken as applicable only to subjects where it is possible to be "world class." There is no award for turning door knobs.

I have a copy of the de la Maza book and he says that 2400 hours is needed to become an accomplished chess player. Good but not great.

That's 2400 hours of hard work.

Becoming great is another matter.

This article touches on the subject at hand:

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5147

Thanks, goldendog.

This pretty much supports the Gladwell hypothesis. The average to reach 2200 was 11,000 hours practice but the variation was from 3000 to 23000. Those who reach higher ratings practiced more and started earlier. 

Capablanca seems to be the big exception that people are mentioning. I don't know his personal story. Maybe someone can post some biographical material on him.

Here's what Wikipedia says about Capablanca's childhood:

José Raúl Capablanca, the second surviving son of an army officer,^[1] was born in Havana on November 19, 1888.^[2] According to Capablanca, he learned the rules of the game at the age of four by watching his father play, pointed out an illegal move by his father, and then beat his father twice. At the age of eight he was taken to Havana Chess Club, which had hosted many important contests, but on the advice of a doctor he was not allowed to play frequently. In November to December 1901 he narrowly beat the Cuban Chess Champion, Juan Corzo, in a match.^[2][3][4] However in April 1902 he only came fourth out of six in the National Championship, losing both his games against Juan Corzo.^[4] In 1905 Capablanca passed with ease the entrance examinations for Columbia University in New York City, as he wished to play for Columbia's strong baseball team, and soon was selected as shortstop on the freshman team. Around this time he also played a lot of chess, mainly at the Manhattan Chess Club, where he won a rapid chess tournament ahead of the reigning World Chess Champion, Emanuel Lasker. In 1908 he left the university to concentrate on chess.^[2][3]

"On the advice of a doctor he was not allowed to play frequently" doesn't support the 10,000 hour rule but everything else here does. Capablanca learned chess at the age of 4 by watching his father play. At age 8 he was playing at Havana Chess Club. At age 13 he beat the Cuban National Champion. By college age, he was playing a lot of chess at the Manhattan Chess Club. By 20, he was a professional chess player. So, maybe Capablanca wasn't an exception after all.