I think the meta that these experiences renforce is (the somewhat cliche) growth mentality.
Path A is different from B in term of ratings progress for any given number of hours played/practiced. Playing Blitz. Playing Classic. Having a coach. Self coaching. Analyzing games. Tactics. Openings... Some combination of these will build skill more effectively than other. You can intentionally select an effective path, if you want/choose to.
Being just a game/hobby for most people, it's perfectly rational to choose a slower rate of improvement. I play mostly bullet... no analysis/study/etc. It's fun, but not much progress. That's a choice, conscious or otherwise.
I think a lot of people, in retrospect, might characterize the intentionally progressive path as too demanding on time. This is often illusionary. The X curve is hours dedicated, whether that's 10 per year or 1000. Skill progression is not more demanding of time, but it can demand more "energy".
This is important because we do dedicate our time to something, inevitably. We spend a lot of time on "skilled" activities in the sense that it's possible to improve at them.. How many hours do you spend writing emails? Writing is skilled work. Programming, obviously. etc. We cook. We have hobbies. If you spend 30m per day with your kids on homework, that's teaching. Teaching is a skilled task. Gardening. Home improvement. It is possible to intentionally get better at these skills, if we choose to. We're already spending the time.
Even passive activities can be (arguably) skilled. "Film appreciation" is also kind of skilled. You can learn to appreciate the shots, composition. Each movie you watch can extend your understanding of filmography.
There's something kind of magical about and elo rating. It's a nice objective number that changes every time we play. Imagine having an elo rating for your cooking/writing/programming/etc.
Path A is different from B in term of ratings progress for any given number of hours played/practiced. Playing Blitz. Playing Classic. Having a coach. Self coaching. Analyzing games. Tactics. Openings... Some combination of these will build skill more effectively than other. You can intentionally select an effective path, if you want/choose to.
Being just a game/hobby for most people, it's perfectly rational to choose a slower rate of improvement. I play mostly bullet... no analysis/study/etc. It's fun, but not much progress. That's a choice, conscious or otherwise.
I think a lot of people, in retrospect, might characterize the intentionally progressive path as too demanding on time. This is often illusionary. The X curve is hours dedicated, whether that's 10 per year or 1000. Skill progression is not more demanding of time, but it can demand more "energy".
This is important because we do dedicate our time to something, inevitably. We spend a lot of time on "skilled" activities in the sense that it's possible to improve at them.. How many hours do you spend writing emails? Writing is skilled work. Programming, obviously. etc. We cook. We have hobbies. If you spend 30m per day with your kids on homework, that's teaching. Teaching is a skilled task. Gardening. Home improvement. It is possible to intentionally get better at these skills, if we choose to. We're already spending the time.
Even passive activities can be (arguably) skilled. "Film appreciation" is also kind of skilled. You can learn to appreciate the shots, composition. Each movie you watch can extend your understanding of filmography.
There's something kind of magical about and elo rating. It's a nice objective number that changes every time we play. Imagine having an elo rating for your cooking/writing/programming/etc.