indeed there is an error in that diagram 1.01^365 yelds 37,78 improvement - not 31,18.
Exactly: [ 37,783434332887158877 ]
31.18 would need only 1.0094685 improvement day to day.
In fact i tinhk that to improve in chess you need to make a pause from it for some time :)
Exactly: [ 37,783434332887158877 ]
31.18 would need only 1.0094685 improvement day to day.
In fact i tinhk that to improve in chess you need to make a pause from it for some time :)
I agree with your assessment and particularly believe that the ‘compounding’ is not applicable to improving in e.g. chess.
The 1:1 comparison with compounded interest is in my opinion not valid as to improve by 1% on day 365 requires a larger improvement than on day 1 for the same individual. For compounding interest on e.g. a sum of money in a bank account, the compounding makes sense as a bank will combine many accounts and invests the combined sum on e.g. the stock market, company loan or mortgage, each of which will have a rate of return, which effectively results in compounded interest on each customer account.
There is a level of compounding of improvements going on as gained insights in the past may enhance some future growth, but I think its only a partial effect, not a full compounding.
Its an interesting thought though, but rather than an exponential growth, a learner typically goes through growth spurts, then hits a plateau, then declines and the cycle repeats. This is what you see in rating graphs of average (i.e. non prodigy) people.
The 1:1 comparison with compounded interest is in my opinion not valid as to improve by 1% on day 365 requires a larger improvement than on day 1 for the same individual. For compounding interest on e.g. a sum of money in a bank account, the compounding makes sense as a bank will combine many accounts and invests the combined sum on e.g. the stock market, company loan or mortgage, each of which will have a rate of return, which effectively results in compounded interest on each customer account.
There is a level of compounding of improvements going on as gained insights in the past may enhance some future growth, but I think its only a partial effect, not a full compounding.
Its an interesting thought though, but rather than an exponential growth, a learner typically goes through growth spurts, then hits a plateau, then declines and the cycle repeats. This is what you see in rating graphs of average (i.e. non prodigy) people.
1. Impovement is actually 37,78 (37,783434332887275).
2. "Deprovement" is also -37,78 (-37.783434332887275), so the average of these numbers is 0.
No growth. Literally.
P.S. There is no "31.18" on the picture. If you look on the picture carefully, his "1" is just a stick, and his "7" is not.
2. "Deprovement" is also -37,78 (-37.783434332887275), so the average of these numbers is 0.
No growth. Literally.
P.S. There is no "31.18" on the picture. If you look on the picture carefully, his "1" is just a stick, and his "7" is not.
The 1%-Method sounds trivial. But you have to know, that the changes in the end are huge.
You have to reach on day 366 an improvment which is 37,78 times the improvement of the first day.
You have to reach on day 366 an improvment which is 37,78 times the improvement of the first day.
1% method is just a nice-sounding BS. Each subsequent 1% will be exponentially harder to achieve, see Paretto rule, for example
Cool article, great idea to point out that it's a flawed graph/method while also understanding that it's more about creating a good mindset.
@hendrixmaine I agree with you. The problem is if I will improve every day by 1%, after a year I could easily defeat Magnus Carlsen?
@hendrixmaine said in #8:
>
Well, 'creating a good mindset' is actually the same as improving as chess is a 'game of the mind'.
The main flaw I see is the assumption that every small improvement fully 'compounds' with all past learning and at the same percentage (and 1% is way too high for a single day improvement, think about a 100m sprinter shaving every day 1% off their track record, its just not going to hold up for more than a week as other limitations kick in).
There is compounding of learning going on as combined knowledge/insights create an overall improvement greater than the sum of parts as one improvement benefits another (i.e. learning chess basics such as 'not hanging pieces' will allow any learned tactics to thrive and learning tactics also benefits e.g. the development of a plan and strategy).
>
Well, 'creating a good mindset' is actually the same as improving as chess is a 'game of the mind'.
The main flaw I see is the assumption that every small improvement fully 'compounds' with all past learning and at the same percentage (and 1% is way too high for a single day improvement, think about a 100m sprinter shaving every day 1% off their track record, its just not going to hold up for more than a week as other limitations kick in).
There is compounding of learning going on as combined knowledge/insights create an overall improvement greater than the sum of parts as one improvement benefits another (i.e. learning chess basics such as 'not hanging pieces' will allow any learned tactics to thrive and learning tactics also benefits e.g. the development of a plan and strategy).
very similar to divide and conquer this is not new and know already, still good blog