*The study found that intelligence was linked to chess skill for the overall sample, but particularly among young chess players and those at lower levels of skill. This may be because the upper-level players represent a winnowed distribution of cognitive ability -- in other words, they all tend to be fairly bright.*
Nice selective shit dude. Those elite players, the one above 130 iq with good spacial intelligence, probably would be above 1800 elo with little practice. This is considered above decent mind you.
The article you linked show deliberate practice ammounted for only 34% of the variance, Intelligence being one of the main cause accounted for results as well.
Correlations between deliberate practice and chess performance, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), are displayed in
Table 1. On average, deliberate practice explained 34% of the
variance in performance after correcting for measurement error
variance (avg. ^r = .57; sample size-weighted avg. ^r = .49),
leaving 66% of the variance unexplained and potentially
explainable by other factors (see Fig. 1). The 95% CI included
1.0 in Bilalić et al. (2007), but the confidence interval was
very wide (^r = .81, 95% CI, .46, 1.0) due to a small sample size
(N = 23).5 (Note also that the correlation between practice and
chess performance dropped from .69 to .60 after Bilalić
et al. statistically controlled for IQ, which yields ^r = .70, 95%
CI, .29, .95.)
On average, deliberate practice explained 34% of the
reliable variance in chess performance, leaving 66% unexplained and potentially explainable by other factors. We
conclude that deliberate practice is not sufficient to account
for individual differences in chess performance.
The implication of this conclusion is that some people
require much less deliberate practice than other people to reach
an elite level of performance in chess.
Honestly speaking , you are one of the worst pos that dwells on this site.
It's too bad you can't be banned forever because you really deserve it.