Why do two players who seem to work equally hard improve at different rates? The question arises quickly at the club. It often leads to a convenient verdict: one has talent and the other does not.

Yet the word groups different things together. You may observe ease in remembering a position, useful previous experience, motivation or an appropriate working method. That is not yet a genetic measurement.

Deliberate practice and its limits

Ericsson, Krampe and Tesch-Römer (1993) study demanding practice organised to improve a skill. Accumulated hours in the groups of musicians they examine helped popularise “ten thousand hours”. That average is not a guarantee of a chess title.

Hambrick and colleagues (2014) reanalyse expertise data, including chess. Their article discusses variability associated with practice and the limits of explaining expertise through practice alone. It does not describe a new experiment dividing each player into 30% training, 8% IQ and a genetic remainder.

An unexplained share can include other variables, measurement differences and error. It is not direct evidence of a missing gene in the model.

What heritability means

Plomin and von Stumm (2018) review research on the genetics of intelligence. Heritability concerns variation in a characteristic within a studied population and environment. It does not mean your own level consists of a fixed percentage of genes and the rest training.

Their review concerns cognitive measurements and genetic associations. It does not estimate the heritability of your Elo. Percentages reported for IQ therefore cannot be recycled as a range for “chess talent”.

Correlation and heritability are not interchangeable

A correlation between twins expresses similarity on a measure. Estimating heritability requires a model and additional assumptions. Showing a correlation of 0.80, then announcing heritability of 54–66% without explaining the model, is not enough.

Likewise, a study of years of education is not automatically an IQ study, still less a study of chess ratings. Keep the measured characteristic visible when citing a finding.

The Polgár case: a history, not a controlled experiment

Judit Polgár’s biographical dossier documents her peak world ranking of eighth and victories over eleven world champions. It supports describing an exceptional career. It does not isolate genetic effects from family training.

You need not choose between “everything was predetermined” and “everyone would achieve the same result with the same programme”. Both conclusions exceed what this biography can show.

What remains useful for your training

Start with difficulties you can describe: endgame knowledge, checking threats, time spent on decisions. Choose a way to work on them and observe how your responses develop. A plateau over a few games does not measure biological potential.

If you support a child, preserve opportunities to discover several activities and change their mind. Their rating is not an aptitude test. Their interest in chess and the conditions in which they play also deserve a hearing.

Research leaves many questions open. That does not prevent serious work or playing for enjoyment; above all, it prevents turning a population statistic into a verdict on a person.

Sources

  • Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The Role of Deliberate Practice in the Acquisition of Expert Performance. Psychological Review, 100, 363–406. Article.
  • Hambrick, D. Z., et al. (2014). Deliberate practice: Is that all it takes to become an expert? Intelligence, 45, 34–45. Article.
  • Plomin, R., & von Stumm, S. (2018). The new genetics of intelligence. Nature Reviews Genetics, 19, 148–159. Manuscript.
  • Judit Polgár (2026). PressKit. Judit Polgar Chess Foundation. Biographical dossier.