Flickr/FaceMePLS 
 
 As a teenager in Sweden, Anders Ericsson used to play chess against one of his classmates, a boy considerably worse at the game than Ericsson. Every time they'd play, Ericsson would trounce him. 
 
 Then one day, the classmate beat him. 
 
 Ericsson wanted to know: What exactly had the boy done to improve his performance so drastically? 
 
 Though Ericsson didn't realize it then, the question would come to define his life's work. 
 
 Advertisement 
 
 In the years that followed his defeat at the hands of his classmate, Ericsson found himself less interested in improving at chess and more interested in learning how people improve at anything. 
 
 Today, Ericsson is a professor of psychology at Florida State University, where he specializes, among many topics, in the science of peak performance. He is, in other words, an expert on experts. 
 
 Anders Ericsson. Anders Ericsson According to Ericsson's research and logic, the sole reason you aren't a virtuoso violinist, or an Olympic athlete, or another kind of world-class performer, is that you haven't engaged in a process he calls "deliberate practice." 
 
 In general, according to Ericsson, deliberate practice involves stepping outside your comfort zone and trying activities beyond your current abilities. While repeating a skill you've already mastered might be satisfying, it's not enough to help you get better. Moreover, simply wanting to improve isn't enough — people also need well-defined goals and the help of a teacher who makes a plan for achieving them. 
 
 At first, the teacher gives feedback on your efforts; eventually, you can spot problems in your own performance and tweak it accordingly. Ericsson's research has led him to study expert spellers, elite athletes, and memory champions — and he attributes their diverse successes to deliberate practice. 
 
 Most notably, Ericsson's work on deliberate practice formed the basis for the "10,000-hour rule" featured in Malcolm Gladwell's book, "Outliers": Put in about 10,000 hours of practice, and you'll become an expert. 
 
 Unfortunately, Ericsson says Gladwell misinterpreted his research and that 10,000 hours of merely repeating the same activity over and over again is not sufficient to catapult someone to the top of their field. 
 
 Gladwell likely drew his conclusions from a paper that Ericsson and his colleagues published in 1993, which studied 40 violinists in Germany. Specifically, the researchers focused on what factors differentiated the best musicians from the good or the mediocre ones. 
 
 After asking all the violinists to give detailed records of how they spent their time, on music practice as well as on other activities, the researchers found that the top two groups of violinists spent significantly more hours practicing alone than the others did. The researchers also studied pianists and yielded similar conclusions. 
 
 Advertisement 
 
 On average — and Gladwell likely drew his conclusion from this — the best violinists had spent a total of 10,000 hours practicing their craft by 20 years old. Some, however, had practiced much more, or less, than that. (Gladwell's publicist didn't respond to a request for comment.) 
 
 Ericsson's findings from the past three decades suggest that deliberate practice is the key to achieving high levels of performance in any field. 
 
 In his book, "Peak: Secrets From the New Science of Expertise," cowritten with the journalist Robert Pool, Ericsson translates the principles of deliberate practice from academic-speak into plain language. 
 
 When I spoke with Ericsson by phone in May, he told me that people who think practice can only get you so far aren't talking about the same kind of practice as he is. 
 
 Advertisement 
 
 As for whether genetic differences — say, in cognitive or physical ability — account for variations in achievement, Ericsson is skeptical. 
 
 Height and body size, he said, are the only genetically predetermined traits that can't be altered much through practice and have a meaningful impact on performance. 
 
 Even intelligence, Ericsson said, is not directly linked to expert performance. In "Peak," he cites a study by British researchers, which found that intelligence does indeed predict chess skill among children. But when those researchers looked only at kids who were elite chess players, a higher IQ was, in fact, linked to worse skills. 
 
 Kids with high IQs learn how to play chess faster — but once their peers catch up, they may no longer have an advantage. Tim Vizer/AP While a high IQ helps kids learn the game and acquire the basic skills required to play, once other kids catch up intelligence level probably doesn't matter, Ericsson explains. But deliberate practice does. 
 
 "I've been spending now 30 years trying to look for kind of limits that would actually constrain some individuals from being successful in some domain," Ericsson told me. "And I'm surprised that I've yet really to find such limits." 
 
 In the last few years, however, Ericsson's findings on deliberate practice have come under intense scrutiny from other psychologists. 
 
 Research published in May 2016 analyzed the results of thousands of studies and found that while deliberate practice did indeed account for some of the differences between more and less skilled athletes, it couldn't account for all of them. The researchers can't say for sure what other factors matter, but they propose that genetically influenced physical traits such as how easily you build muscle mass, and even psychological traits like confidence, play a role. 
 
 Prior, in 2014, researchers analyzed six studies of chess players and eight studies of musicians and found that deliberate practice was not the only explanation for high performance in either domain. Instead, other factors, like intelligence, might be at play there as well. 
 
 In a response to the 2016 paper, published in the same journal, Ericsson wrote that these conclusions are inaccurate, largely because they conflate total hours of accumulate practice with deliberate practice specifically. 
 
 Unless you're performing exercises that were assigned by a teacher to help you improve in a particular area, Ericsson believes you're not engaging in deliberate practice. Plenty of practice activities are completely ineffective and won't lead to improvement, he told me when we spoke again in June. 
 
 Given the right practice conditions, could I really become an exceptional writer? Wikimedia Reading over the scientific studies on deliberate practice, I couldn't help but wonder what these findings mean for professional writers. 
 
 Given the right practice conditions, could I really become the next Tom Wolfe or Michael Lewis? 
 
 Based on my understanding of Ericsson's research, it would take a lifetime of adherence to rigid practice criteria — but yes, it would theoretically be possible. 
 
 I posed a similar question to D. Zachary Hambrick, a professor of psychology at Michigan State University who coauthored both the 2014 and 2016 papers debunking Ericsson's findings. 
 
 Hambrick said he didn't know. To date, no research has explored the role of deliberate practice in writing expertise. But Hambrick also said he'd be surprised if writing ability was entirely dependent on deliberate practice. In other words, unless I started out with certain requisite abilities, a lifetime might not be enough for me to achieve Wolfe or Lewis levels. 
 
 Hambrick, however, kept reiterating that practice is important, if not essential, to the development of expertise in any field. 
 
 "I don't think there's any downside to believing in the power of practice," he said. "I do think there is a possible downside to sort of thinking that anybody can accomplish anything with no limits." 
 
 Advertisement 
 
 To put it frankly, believing that people can deliberately practice their way to peak performance might be a waste of time. 
 
 "People might start training in things and end up not improving much when they could have invested their resources and energies and time and training in other things which they might be more likely to excel at," Hambrick said. 
 
 Beyond the controversy over whether deliberate practice leads directly to expertise, perhaps the insight that struck me most in "Peak" was this: To become an expert, you may need to be willing to sacrifice short-term pleasure for potential satisfaction of success down the road. A key tenet of deliberate practice is that it's generally not enjoyable. 
 
 Instead, it's about doing things that don't come naturally or easily, which can be tough. "Practice really involves failing a lot until you eventually reach your goal," Ericsson told me. 
 
 Elite skaters spent more time practicing jumps and spins. REUTERS/Lucy Nicholson He cited research on figure skaters (which appeared in this book) that found elite skaters spent more time than average ones practicing jumps and spins in routines they hadn't yet mastered. By contrast, average skaters spent more time going over routines they were already good at. 
 
 So what's the downside to becoming an expert? Perhaps it's that you need to devote yourself wholly to one area — that while one door flies wide open, others slowly creak to a close. Ericsson told me he doesn't know of anyone who's become a world-class expert in more than one skill. 
 
 That's why, he said, becoming an expert in anything and placing 100% focus on becoming the best in one domain "may not be basically the right thing here for even the majority of people." 
 
 That is to say, there's nothing inherently wrong with being average. In fact, working toward expertise in any area can be a grueling, lonely, and often ugly undertaking. 
 
 Ericsson, however, does practice what he preaches. He said he personally uses the principles of deliberate practice to become a better researcher. Every article he published, as a postdoctoral researcher and afterward, was the result of multiple drafts and feedback from the psychologists he was working with. 
 
 Ericsson cited one 1980 paper, which he cowrote with the late cognitive psychologist Bill Chase and published in the journal Science. 
 
 "Partly because I am Swedish," Ericsson said, "it took over 30 different drafts with comments on problems and issues by Bill before we had an article that Bill was willing add his name to." ||||| Study links intelligence and chess skill 
 
 Intelligence – and not just relentless practice – plays a significant role in determining chess skill, indicates a comprehensive new study led by Michigan State University researchers. 
 
 The research provides some of the most conclusive evidence to date that cognitive ability is linked to skilled performance – a hotly debated issue in psychology for decades – and refutes theories that expertise is based solely on intensive training. 
 
 “Chess is probably the single most studied domain in research on expertise, yet the evidence for the relationship between chess skill and cognitive ability is mixed,” said MSU’s Alexander Burgoyne, lead author on the study. “We analyzed a half-century worth of research on intelligence and chess skill and found that cognitive ability contributes meaningfully to individual differences in chess skill.” 
 
 The findings, reported online in the journal Intelligence, come out of Zach Hambrick’s Expertise Lab at MSU, which examines the origins of skill in domains such as chess, music and sports. 
 
 “When it comes to expertise, training and practice certainly are a piece of the puzzle,” said Hambrick, MSU professor of psychology. “But this study shows that, for chess at least, intelligence is another piece of the puzzle.” 
 
 For the in-depth study, known as a meta-analysis, the researchers considered nearly 2,300 scholarly articles on chess skill, looking specifically for studies that included a measure of cognitive ability (such as IQ score) and objective chess skill (such as the Elo rating, which ranks players based on game performance). The final sample included 19 studies with about 1,800 total participants. 
 
 The meta-analysis represents the first attempt by researchers to systematically investigate the best available scientific evidence for the link between intellect and chess skill, said Burgoyne, a graduate student in the Cognition and Cognitive Neuroscience program at MSU. 
 
 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. (By way of comparison, Burgoyne said, consider the world’s best basketball players. Although there is essentially no correlation between height and points scored at that level, that doesn’t mean height isn’t important in basketball.) 
 
 Hambrick offered another potential explanation. “Imagine that a genius can become a skilled chess player relatively easily, whereas a person with average intelligence may take longer. So the idea is, as you practice more and develop more skills and knowledge about the game, you may be able to circumvent limitations in cognitive ability.” This might be true for chess, he added, but not for all activities. In an earlier study, Hambrick and a colleague found that working memory, a cognitive ability related to general intelligence, predicted success in sight-reading music even among highly practiced pianists. 
 
 In addition to Burgoyne and Hambrick, study co-authors include Giovanni Sala and Fernand Gobet of the University of Liverpool in the United Kingdom; Brooke Macnamara of Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland; and Guillermo Campitelli of Edith Cowan University in Australia.
– If you were hoping to become a chess master by practicing 10,000 hours, think again. Contrary to the theory that expertise at chess is based on intensive training, researchers at the University of Michigan have concluded based on a meta-analysis of 19 studies that hard work is important but not enough. In this game, if you're not smart, you're probably sunk. "When it comes to expertise, training and practice certainly are a piece of the puzzle," psychology professor Zach Hambrick says. "But this study shows that, for chess at least, intelligence is another piece of the puzzle." The researchers found that intelligence is always linked to chess skill no matter the age of the participant, though the link appears strongest in younger players or those at lower skill levels. It's possible, the team suggests, that this is because upper-echelon players are all pretty bright anyway—at that point, "They're all smart cookies," as the Huffington Post puts it. In an interview with Business Insider earlier this summer, Hambrick conceded that practice is probably important for mastery in any field, but he cautions against "thinking that anybody can accomplish anything with no limits" based solely on hard work. (The youngest ever chess grandmaster in the US has been playing since he was 5.)