Can everyone reach 2k?

[asdfasdfasdf1]

physically? probably, at least 90%. if they were told they get $1 million USD to get 2k and are being coached.

mentally? not really. there are so many people who put in the hours of work but get tilted or don't bother focusing at all. they are ignorant of their own mistakes and shortcomings and auto-pilot every single game and never learn.

source: uhm... a friend.

 

[zShades]

Observations of mine about RTS talent from 2 months ago:

Hera played the game for 1 year in Voobly to get 2k. Vortix said it was easy - https://aoe2.net/#profile-60328

You can see how he grinded 3 times, in the first month of DE to almost 1500, one month a year later to almost 1700, and six months later in six weeks to get to 2k in just over 625 games (then some EW and a month of TG to get up to 2k5 in just over 125 games).

Conclusion: Already having top RTS mechanics cuts down aoe2 learning time by almost 4x

Other examples from Genesis are:

Mlord - 3 months to 1800, back to SC2, then 4 months to 2k
RecoN - 5 months to 2k at the start of DE, with a 1 month break around 1500
Probe - one tricked Franks to 1800 in 1 month, then 2 months on his smurf for 1981

The flipside is, someone has 6k games in unranked with a 29% win rate..

2k on De is nothing, it's not the 2k level we used to have on voobly. reaching 2k is top 250. in aoe4 rank 250 is 1600 which is quite easy to get as well. after 650 games i would say it's not suprising, considering the fact how easy it is nowadays with the mapool rotation and pick civs system. u can just wait to get aftermath and kill everyone with lithuanians.

 

[OnArtu]

I agree on most of the things. Multitasking might be partly genetics, I don't know much about it. But there are ways (as you describe with experience) to work around multitasking. For example, some things become second nature because you practice them over and over again. By making things automatic, you don't have to think about it and can prioritize your focus elsewhere and therefore lower the need of multitasking.

And regarding your player A/B/C scenario:

Not even every pro players macro and micro at the same time. At a 2k level you could easily walk back with your army, macro for 10s and engage again. How often do you see Daut micro and macro at the same time? He is not a fast player but is one of the best player in the world of all times. Even if you can use the ability to be insanely fast at switching between actions, it isn't needed for a 2k level. That's why APM isn't that telling how good you are. Because some other people may have half your APM but may use it much more wisely and therefore doing more with half the work.

Let me clarify what I meant with a better example taken from Daut gameplay:

And let's break down what he's able to do from minute 5:40 onwards:

- He formulates an out of the box strategy (double stable scout with early bloodlines and no loom villagers).
- He adjusts his macro accordingly to the strategy.
- He always keeps his TC and his stables running (scrolling the video every 5 seconds you'll find almost always something queued up on any of those buildings).
- He always keeps his wood count close to 0 and place efficient farms.
- He always keeps his villagers working, for example reacting very fast when his berries villagers went idle. Scrolling through the video you'll see that his idle vill count is almost always 0.
- He constantly micro his scouts, even when split in different groups, without taking almost any undesired hit from enemy spearmen, without ever running under enemy TC and always taking favourable engagements.

While none of those tasks is hard or require big amount of talent, crazy APM or insane micro to be executed on its own, what in my opinion is out of reach for most people is:

- The mental readiness to correctly assess the situation when you face a new task. Examples: quickly evaluating if/how to take an engagement (which require a quick assessment of your and opponent army strength, assessment of nearby map characteristics such as hills and choke points, ecc...), quickly evaluating how many units queue up on any building to prevent stockpiling res in long queues and don't have enough res to produce from others (example queue up 3 scouts on each stable and don't have enough food for vill production), deciding quickly which buildings is more important to produce from if there aren't enough res to produce from everything.
- The ability of regularly cycling through the tasks with correct timing, which partially depends from previous point since you have to perform the previous task quickly to jump to the following one in time
- The mental energy to do this consistently for a prolonged time.

What I mean to say is that I find there's too much focus on APM/EAPM stats, which mean almost nothing to me since you can archieve high stats clicking random stuff on the keyboard or performing actions which aren't actually useful for winning a game. What I find to be a bigger limitation on player potential is not the speed on the keyboard but the speed of the brain for processing informations and taking consistently right decisions in a short amount of time.

 

[JazBas]

2k on De is nothing, it's not the 2k level we used to have on voobly. reaching 2k is top 250. in aoe4 rank 250 is 1600 which is quite easy to get as well. after 650 games i would say it's not suprising, considering the fact how easy it is nowadays with the mapool rotation and pick civs system. u can just wait to get aftermath and kill everyone with lithuanians.

Your reply contradicts your point actually. You say it's nothing and easy because it really is for you. If everyone can do it according to you, why don't they? I see plenty of people with many more games than you who are even below 1k ELO in Aoe4, or your current 2k in Aoe2. How are we also sure that they aren't practising with the "right method"? Maybe they aren't, but maybe they are? What's left in conclusion then? you are more talented than most people in RTS games. Definition of talent I'm referring to isn't just about things you are born with, but things you develop when you are a little kid unconsciously or consciously. Because a different kid that experienced similar things to you may not learn the things the way you did! They might have their talents in a different area. A person may have focussed more on problem solving where as a different person may have focussed on emotional awareness and social behaviour of people when they grow up. Remember, just because it is easy for you, doesn't mean it's easy for everyone.

There are 2 kinds of people who are saying anyone can get there and it's only because they don't have the time
1. The disrespectful and arrogant ones that think - oh the ones who got to 2k are only there because they got nothing better to do but I have a "life", hence although I can, I won't
These people are insecure people who can't take the fact that some people are better than them in certain aspects, like gaming. They can't stand it when they think someone thinks they are better than them. You know, it's okay to be worse than someone in gaming, sports, music, arts, etc cause most likely, you will be better than lots of people at certain things too

2. The ones who look up to the time and perspiration people put in to get there, respects it, and wants to do the same but can't because they don't have the time
These people, whether or not if the time thing is true or not (we will never figure this out unless EVERYONE puts in the same amount of time with the same method, which is impossible), will thrive in whatever talent, love, and passion they find as they respect the amount of time that is required to reach the top level, and according to the stats, 2k IS top level, even if it seems very easy for some people.

 

[MaSmOrRa]

While none of those tasks is hard or require big amount of talent, crazy APM or insane micro to be executed on its own, what in my opinion is out of reach for most people is:

But don't you think it's too much of a coincidence that the person you are talking about is probably one of the most experienced RTS players in the World?
Someone who quit school to dedicate himself fully to the game when he was like 14 and never really stopped playing since then?
Someone who also happened to be trained by other highly skilled RTS players?

On top of that, I think DauT is legitimately a very smart individual, which means he most likely was able to self-criticize and improve by analyzing his own mistakes from a very early age.

 

[lecracheursagacite]

Threads like this are AoEZone at its best imo

 

[pete26196]

Observations of mine about RTS talent from 2 months ago:

Hera played the game for 1 year in Voobly to get 2k. Vortix said it was easy - https://aoe2.net/#profile-60328

You can see how he grinded 3 times, in the first month of DE to almost 1500, one month a year later to almost 1700, and six months later in six weeks to get to 2k in just over 625 games (then some EW and a month of TG to get up to 2k5 in just over 125 games).

Bear in mind the point at which they're playing in time. Vortix was 1488 rated in december 2019 and that's not the same as 14xx now. That was probably something like top 100 already

 

[OnArtu]

But don't you think it's too much of a coincidence that the person you are talking about is probably one of the most experienced RTS players in the World?
Someone who quit school to dedicate himself fully to the game when he was like 14 and never really stopped playing since then?
Someone who also happened to be trained by other highly skilled RTS players?

On top of that, I think DauT is legitimately a very smart individual, which means he most likely was able to self-criticize and improve by analyzing his own mistakes from a very early age.

I don't think it's a coincidence, but honestly I don't understand what's the link with my post

 

[MaSmOrRa]

I don't think it's a coincidence, but honestly I don't understand what's the link with my post

Right, so you are saying DauT is able to do all those things you beautifully described in your previous post and that most people probably will never be able to do that.
I agree.

However, unless I misunderstood you, you seem to be suggesting he's that good because of this "natural talent" he supposedly possesses.

While I don't dispute he's "naturally gifted" I think a much bigger factor in him being this good is that:

- He played the game full time from a very early age;
- He had exceptionally good players coaching him (kkab, etc.);
- He has been playing this game for over 20 years;
- He is a very intelligent guy.

None of these things have anything to do with natural talent.
Maybe intelligence is the closest to it, but then again intelligence is a general thing and not specific to AoE2.

 

[zShades]

Your reply contradicts your point actually. You say it's nothing and easy because it really is for you. If everyone can do it according to you, why don't they? I see plenty of people with many more games than you who are even below 1k ELO in Aoe4, or your current 2k in Aoe2. How are we also sure that they aren't practising with the "right method"? Maybe they aren't, but maybe they are? What's left in conclusion then? you are more talented than most people in RTS games. Definition of talent I'm referring to isn't just about things you are born with, but things you develop when you are a little kid unconsciously or consciously. Because a different kid that experienced similar things to you may not learn the things the way you did! They might have their talents in a different area. A person may have focussed more on problem solving where as a different person may have focussed on emotional awareness and social behaviour of people when they grow up. Remember, just because it is easy for you, doesn't mean it's easy for everyone.

There are 2 kinds of people who are saying anyone can get there and it's only because they don't have the time
1. The disrespectful and arrogant ones that think - oh the ones who got to 2k are only there because they got nothing better to do but I have a "life", hence although I can, I won't
These people are insecure people who can't take the fact that some people are better than them in certain aspects, like gaming. They can't stand it when they think someone thinks they are better than them. You know, it's okay to be worse than someone in gaming, sports, music, arts, etc cause most likely, you will be better than lots of people at certain things too

2. The ones who look up to the time and perspiration people put in to get there, respects it, and wants to do the same but can't because they don't have the time
These people, whether or not if the time thing is true or not (we will never figure this out unless EVERYONE puts in the same amount of time with the same method, which is impossible), will thrive in whatever talent, love, and passion they find as they respect the amount of time that is required to reach the top level, and according to the stats, 2k IS top level, even if it seems very easy for some people.

as i said, only way to reach 2k and improve in a serious way, not hoang or clown way is by playing 10 games a day and watch yours + top players recorded games. If you do it constantly you will become a way better player

 

[JazBas]

as i said, only way to reach 2k and improve in a serious way, not hoang or clown way is by playing 10 games a day and watch yours + top players recorded games. If you do it constantly you will become a way better player

Not true. Some can get there with much less effort, some needs even more than what you've just said, and some will not be able to even with what you said. Become a way better player? of course I agree. But reach 2k? really depends, and most won't be able to. That is why it's top xx% of the whole AOE2 multiplayer population. It is not because they have less time than the ones who are 2k+ (for some, it may be the case). Give a read through the posts I've written. We can't generalise everyone. "You can do anything!" is far from the truth. 2k may seem easy to you, but it still is a very small proportion and there are MANY people who wants to get there and are trying very hard, and have been trying very hard, watching, studying, playing etc.

 

[OnArtu]

Right, so you are saying DauT is able to do all those things you beautifully described in your previous post and that most people probably will never be able to do that.
I agree.

However, unless I misunderstood you, you seem to be suggesting he's that good because of this "natural talent" he supposedly possesses.

While I don't dispute he's "naturally gifted" I think a much bigger factor in him being this good is that:

- He played the game full time from a very early age;
- He had exceptionally good players coaching him (kkab, etc.);
- He has been playing this game for over 20 years;
- He is a very intelligent guy.

None of these things have anything to do with natural talent.
Maybe intelligence is the closest to it, but then again intelligence is a general thing and not specific to AoE2.

And all of this is absolutely true, I've never claimed that Daut (just like any top player) got there just by pure talent and natural gifts, since I'm perfectly aware those are completely useless without good training (in term of quality and quantity)

The point is that for the purpose of this specific discussion (that as far as I understand is assessing how far an "average talented" player can go or something like that), I think it's important to first of understanding in detail which are those "natural factors" that contribute to how naturally gifted is a player is for playing aoe2, then understand how those factors are distributed among the players population and how much those can potentially put a cap on players ELO/level they can reach in the game.

I took Daut game as example to highlight what I think is of these factors (multitasking). But it's just an example, I could have taken every other pro player.

 

[zShades]

The game is super noob friendly, auto everything, just play 10 games a day with good attitude and studying. you will reach 2k, but still if u you are not convinced, just DM me for some coaching sessions

 

[Kr1lle]

Your reply contradicts your point actually. You say it's nothing and easy because it really is for you. If everyone can do it according to you, why don't they? I see plenty of people with many more games than you who are even below 1k ELO in Aoe4, or your current 2k in Aoe2. How are we also sure that they aren't practising with the "right method"? Maybe they aren't, but maybe they are? What's left in conclusion then? you are more talented than most people in RTS games. Definition of talent I'm referring to isn't just about things you are born with, but things you develop when you are a little kid unconsciously or consciously. Because a different kid that experienced similar things to you may not learn the things the way you did! They might have their talents in a different area. A person may have focussed more on problem solving where as a different person may have focussed on emotional awareness and social behaviour of people when they grow up. Remember, just because it is easy for you, doesn't mean it's easy for everyone.

There are 2 kinds of people who are saying anyone can get there and it's only because they don't have the time
1. The disrespectful and arrogant ones that think - oh the ones who got to 2k are only there because they got nothing better to do but I have a "life", hence although I can, I won't
These people are insecure people who can't take the fact that some people are better than them in certain aspects, like gaming. They can't stand it when they think someone thinks they are better than them. You know, it's okay to be worse than someone in gaming, sports, music, arts, etc cause most likely, you will be better than lots of people at certain things too

2. The ones who look up to the time and perspiration people put in to get there, respects it, and wants to do the same but can't because they don't have the time
These people, whether or not if the time thing is true or not (we will never figure this out unless EVERYONE puts in the same amount of time with the same method, which is impossible), will thrive in whatever talent, love, and passion they find as they respect the amount of time that is required to reach the top level, and according to the stats, 2k IS top level, even if it seems very easy for some people.

Okey so if talent isn't born, it is grown, right? Which is exactly my theory and point. In some way talent is born I believe, but mostly it is grown. That's, once again, why some people are good at everything. They don't have genetics to automatically be good at every game, every subject in school, every sport, every board game. They know how to focus, how to learn etc. That could be learnt, which is exactly my point. If you play 1000 games without much focus to correct and learn and you come to the conclusion that "I'm not talented to become more than 1,2k elo at this game", then yes, you will be stuck.

What you seem to be discussing is "Will everyone reach the same goals with the same kind of methods, help and effort" then my answer is absolutely no. Some people already know how to practice and how to create skills and will do fine on their own, some people doesn't and need some kind of coaching. But they COULD still learn, if they would be a bit more open minded and believing that you actually can practice to multitask better, learn to click more accurate, learn to remember build order, learn to have higher APM, learn to counter certain strats etc etc etc which is more or less everything you need to get good (2k-2,4k) in this game. Not anyone might be able to reach Viper's level, but 2,4k is not even close to that level.

You can blame every failure at talent if you want, but that wouldn't do you any good. Try to improve a little bit every day and see your results over time. Anyway, this will be my last post on this topic.

 

[JazBas]

Okey so if talent isn't born, it is grown, right? Which is exactly my theory and point. In some way talent is born I believe, but mostly it is grown. That's, once again, why some people are good at everything. They don't have genetics to automatically be good at every game, every subject in school, every sport, every board game. They know how to focus, how to learn etc. That could be learnt, which is exactly my point. If you play 1000 games without much focus to correct and learn and you come to the conclusion that "I'm not talented to become more than 1,2k elo at this game", then yes, you will be stuck.

What you seem to be discussing is "Will everyone reach the same goals with the same kind of methods, help and effort" then my answer is absolutely no. Some people already know how to practice and how to create skills and will do fine on their own, some people doesn't and need some kind of coaching. But they COULD still learn, if they would be a bit more open minded and believing that you actually can practice to multitask better, learn to click more accurate, learn to remember build order, learn to have higher APM, learn to counter certain strats etc etc etc which is more or less everything you need to get good (2k-2,4k) in this game. Not anyone might be able to reach Viper's level, but 2,4k is not even close to that level.

You can blame every failure at talent if you want, but that wouldn't do you any good. Try to improve a little bit every day and see your results over time. Anyway, this will be my last post on this topic.

I think you're only reading the parts that is advantageous to what you believe in, and skim read or ignore other parts. I said yes talent is probably things you grow up with, BUT even if people experience same/similar things when they are young, they grow up with different strengths. So yes it can be learnt to a certain extent, but for some people, no, or at least way too hard to a point where it's unrealistic for them to put in the effort.

All of the things you said (multitasking, clicking accuracy, BOs) that can be learnt, yes it can definitely! but to a point to be able to compete at the top 0.06% level? it is what it is for a reason. I think a lot of people underestimate 2k because the streamers they watch, the way they talk about certain ELOs, and their level of playing, are mostly way above 2k.

How can we be sure that a person who played 1000 games didn't do it with the "correct method"? There are MANY players who played a huge amount of games below average ELO (which I believe is 1k?). How are you sure that they didn't have the "correct method"? They all might be watching streams, analysing replays, work on certain mechanics and build orders, etc. Because if they did use the "correct method", isn't that conclusion of "I'm not talented to become more than 1.2k" true?

You can blame every failure to the lack of time if you want, but that wouldn't do you any good if you are person number 2 in my following example.
A person fails an exam:
1. I didn't put in enough time and I know it. Next time I will put in more time!
2. I didn't have enough time to work on this and the people who got A+s only got that because they had the time and I didn't!

Big difference in attitude.

But this talent thing shouldn't put anyone off from trying. My problem is that some people are disrespectful and arrogant to think that the top players only got there BECAUSE they have the time to do so and the only reason they can't get there is that they don't when in fact that most of those top players are just more "talented" than most others.

I have the feeling that you think my point is - "give up because you aren't talented enough". That's not what I'm trying to get at. It's that getting to a top level in almost anything in life requires more than just putting in time to get there. Definitely need to put in lots of hours, but there's more than just that. To describe all of these x-factors, I'm calling it a talent. Not everyone can become anything and that's why there are different jobs, pay differences etc. Some people ARE more talented than others in certain things. Some may get there with lots of hours put in, but really, can everyone become a doctor? (not the top performing doctors, but even the "lower end" of the profession?), what about a pro athlete that mostly sits on the bench? 2k is a very small proportion of AOE2 multiplayer users. Most people will never make it (well there's ELO inflation.. so I guess I should say top xx% instead of 2k).

 

[HongeyKong]

IMO
Talent is born, "level" is grown. Talent somewhat decides your "max level", which you can never break no matter how much effort you put in.

People always use "being talentless" as an excuse to not pay effort tho. Cmon you dont have the right to claim that until youve actually tried.

 

[SuperskinnyBLS]

Talent is born, "level" is grown. Talent somewhat decides your "max level", which you can never break no matter how much effort you put in.

*Cough cough Nili and never breaking 2k2 barrier*

Very well said.

 

[Rayne]

Not anyone might be able to reach Viper's level, but 2,4k is not even close to that level.

You can blame every failure at talent if you want, but that wouldn't do you any good. Try to improve a little bit every day and see your results over time. Anyway, this will be my last post on this topic.

I know that was your last post, but I find the part about Viper’s level of some interest. I’m sure this isn’t a popular thought, but I personally believe anyone actually can get there. It just can’t ever be expressed. Something terrible usually always happens when big goals are openly said to others. I don’t think Viper even knew he’d become Viper at some point. No #1 player surely wants to give up their spot to someone else. He just had a serious dream to be the best player and to maintain the status. In that sense, I don’t think anyone can really say they know the true way to becoming literally the best, it ‘just happens’.

 

[aoeplayer]

I agree with your posts JasBaz, but 2k = ~top 0.6%, not 0.06% (per ratings.aoe2.se)

Nili got to 2k3 @SuperskinnyBLS

 

[Giuseppe551]

I find the part about Viper’s level of some interest. I’m sure this isn’t a popular thought, but I personally believe anyone actually can get there.

2k is one thing but I'm sorry saying anyone can get to viper's level is just really dumb. Do you also think anyone could have gotten to Lebron's level with better practice or more determination? Ignoring the fact that he could have been in the league at 16 (several GMs said he'd be the #1 pick after his sophomore or junior season of high school) and that he quickly surpassed players much older, much more experienced, who had the best coaching, etc.

I actually find your viewpoint really depressing. If I understand correctly you (and others) seem to think we are all the same, no talents, no gifts, etc. and that hard work or better practice influence 100% of outcomes. The reason we watch sports, esports, etc. is to be amazed and entertained by people who do something we could never do. I don't watch the olympics and think, 'gee, if only I had trained a bit harder during high school track I'd be right out there with them'.

 

[Rayne]

2k is one thing but I'm sorry saying anyone can get to viper's level is just really dumb. Do you also think anyone could have gotten to Lebron's level with better practice or more determination? Ignoring the fact that he could have been in the league at 16 (several GMs said he'd be the #1 pick after his sophomore or junior season of high school) and that he quickly surpassed players much older, much more experienced, who had the best coaching, etc.

I actually find your viewpoint really depressing. If I understand correctly you (and others) seem to think we are all the same, no talents, no gifts, etc. and that hard work or better practice influence 100% of outcomes. The reason we watch sports, esports, etc. is to be amazed and entertained by people who do something we could never do. I don't watch the olympics and think, 'gee, if only I had trained a bit harder during high school track I'd be right out there with them'.

I can’t completely disagree with you saying it is dumb. Indeed, it is out there.


I don’t know anything about Lebron or the NBA, but I’d ask you or anyone else one question though, and let’s say there is a is a current #1 in the example. Do you believe if no one dreams of becoming the actual best, that no one will ever replace that person who is #1? Because personally, I find it hard to believe that person will ever be replaced. Another question is how that person who is #1 currently got there too.

Otherwise, there are people who dream and dare of conquering a world so to speak, and those are the only ones who will ever do it. That is as long as they’ve proven to themself and that world they are in a world class league. If someone is 2400 for example. And that person can be anyone from anywhere. How many players have risen up in this game the community didn’t expect? As one example. I’m sure everyone wonders who will replace Viper as well.


I don’t think we are all the same in the sense we have no gifts. Not all roads to improvement or mastery are the exact same, or do you believe there’s only one? I do think there are certain core requirements that everyone must follow, but the complete road is different for everyone because of how they approach life and who they are as a person. I’m sure some other things can be tossed in there as well depending.


Also one thing about your last paragraph, I agree with Jazbay that is it a bit cocky to outright say one can become [insert big goal] if they are far off from that goal. This may not earn me fans in this topic or maybe in general, but I think there’s a reality and a dream.

Like someone with say 500 rating who says they can become 2k as opposed to someone who is let’s say 1700 that wants to be 2k. For the 500, 2k is the dream but the question is what is the current reality, because 2k isn’t that just yet. Maybe 700 or 800 is the reality. Then if they achieve that, what’s the next reality and so on. Soon enough, that 2k rating is less of a dream and more of a reality. For the 1700, the journey is more believable and no need to really talk about it.

If multiple realities aren’t achieved first, any big dream is just a dream and those are the ones who won’t ever hit that big goal. That’s where I don’t see ‘everyone’ applying here but rather ‘anyone’ as I mentioned in my first reply here. And just how much does that person believe in themself is the biggest question from what I see.

 

[Giuseppe551]

Do you believe if no one dreams of becoming the actual best, that no one will ever replace that person who is #1? Because personally, I find it hard to believe that person will ever be replaced.

Why would no one dream of being the best? Kind of a silly hypothetical question honestly. But even if no one dreamed of being the best but merely dreamed of being great, which still takes a tremendous amount of dedication, the current #1 in any endeavor would still fall off simply due to aging. But in the real world tons of people dream of being the best at what they do so I don't even see the relevance here.

 

[Rayne]

Why would no one dream of being the best? Kind of a silly hypothetical question honestly. But even if no one dreamed of being the best but merely dreamed of being great, which still takes a tremendous amount of dedication, the current #1 in any endeavor would still fall off simply due to aging. But in the real world tons of people dream of being the best at what they do so I don't even see the relevance here.

It is very relevant tbh.

Do they dream it to the point where they are working towards making it a reality? That’s the difference. People generally don’t ever dream big, they dream safe. That’s seen across many fields in life.

Also, it’s not about aging here being any reason, but I get the point. Not sure how long you’ve been around in this game or community, but there’s this. Koven was apparently invincible at one point, Halen was incredible and so was Grunt, Chris and Daut ruled the game for almost a decade until Riut became a threat, then came Viper and Jordan back in 2012 or 2013. Someone always wants the #1 spot is the point and they’re working to achieve it. Aging didn’t have anything to do with that stuff.

 

[Biz]

we don't know how much of the multitasking / awareness / quick-reacting can be trained. you don't need to be amazing at it (2K provides some room for mistakes), but i would guess that half the people aren't fast enough for even that

but if you want ammo for "everyone can reach 2K", i have a proof:
can every 1999 player reach 2000? yes can every 1998 player reach 1999? yes can every 1997 player reach 1998? yes ... can every 1000 player reach 1001? yes therefore, every player can reach 2000.

each individual statement is correct, therefore the assertion is correct. Kappa

 

[Tiekel]

Just gonna put a small throw out here of some things I quickly looked up. I think Masmorra mentioned a few times before how people who start out at a young age seem to have a benefit. This seems quite striking to me, I think virtually all top players started playing at least before 20, most much younger. It is pretty well known that your brain is much more flexible during adolescence. Think about people who are born blind or deaf vs those who haven't but turn so later in life. Their brain structures responsible for this modality are configured quite differently. This is because your brain connections configure getting sensory/cognitive experience/stimulation. It is generally accepted that this ability to make these new connections degrades when you age. This is presumable the reason elderly have such difficulty learning to use modern devices, they just don't have the framework to handle it.

Now two studies I found

• https://www.psypost.org/2018/07/enh...served-in-frequent-starcraft-ii-players-51793

This connectivity seems to have some relation specific to spatial attention/memory, but I don't think this was examined closely in this study. My hypothesis is that pros are much better at switching attention (switching attention actually costs energy, people with autism for example fare much worse with this) and keeping track of multiple scenarios in their short term memory.
Quite strikingly, there is variation of 300 up to 1600 connections between these regions in people studied.

• https://neurosciencenews.com/chess-intelligence-practice-14809/ (https://www.pnas.org/content/116/37/18363)

A study about the relation of practise vs intelligence on skill. They argue against a 'common' belief that intelligence is important in chess skill acquisition, but not in performance thereafter, since they show that numerical intelligence predicts skill across all ages. General intelligence or spatial intelligence did not. It is not a longitudinal study though so it doesn't really prove whether training does influence numerical intelligence in any regard or not.

Then finally the much feared graph of cognitive decline, one of many versions out there: