lichess.org
Donate

Small Changes – Huge Results

Do you understand that achieving 37 times more in a span of just 1 year in the same amount of time (be it 20 seconds, 20 minutes or 20 hours) is impossible?
And again, you still don't understand that it's not 37% it's 3700% (3 thousand 7 hundred per cent!)

Do you understand that achieving 37 times more in a span of just 1 year in the same amount of time (be it 20 seconds, 20 minutes or 20 hours) is impossible? And again, you still don't understand that it's not 37% it's 3700% (3 thousand 7 hundred per cent!)

Once I tried this, I gained 300 rating points!

Once I tried this, I gained 300 rating points!

I find people who quote this "improve only 1% per day to see massive gains!" mantra are almost always people who preach capitalism. The reason is because this is the foundation of many capitalist systems: charge "interest" on all loans.

Interest is supposed to be the "passive" level of improvement (i.e. that translate to financial gain) that anyone should be able to maintain with even a modest amount of effort. Bravo, capitalists. Through your reductionist mentality you have failed to account for key factors that actually prevent "1%" endless growth, such as natural boundary conditions (there are only X pounds of seafood that can be harvested sustainably, Y amount of trees that can be burned or harvested sustainably, etc.) We have most of the major problems in global warming due to this mentality. As such it can almost certainly be called evil, or at the very least selfish.

I find people who quote this "improve only 1% per day to see massive gains!" mantra are almost always people who preach capitalism. The reason is because this is the foundation of many capitalist systems: charge "interest" on all loans. Interest is supposed to be the "passive" level of improvement (i.e. that translate to financial gain) that anyone should be able to maintain with even a modest amount of effort. Bravo, capitalists. Through your reductionist mentality you have failed to account for key factors that actually prevent "1%" endless growth, such as natural boundary conditions (there are only X pounds of seafood that can be harvested sustainably, Y amount of trees that can be burned or harvested sustainably, etc.) We have most of the major problems in global warming due to this mentality. As such it can almost certainly be called evil, or at the very least selfish.

Of course getting 1% better every day is impossible.
You can't be 37x faster or jump 37x higher in a year lmao.

Of course getting 1% better every day is impossible. You can't be 37x faster or jump 37x higher in a year lmao.

"If you improve yourself every day by 1% at the end of the year you will be 37.78 times better than at the beginning of the year. On the downside, if you get 1% worse every day, you are very close to 0 at the end of a year."

If you lift a weight 1% heavier a day you'd be by far the strongest man/woman at the end of a year. This sort of one liners are just complete bs and sold by frauds like James Clear.

"If you improve yourself every day by 1% at the end of the year you will be 37.78 times better than at the beginning of the year. On the downside, if you get 1% worse every day, you are very close to 0 at the end of a year." If you lift a weight 1% heavier a day you'd be by far the strongest man/woman at the end of a year. This sort of one liners are just complete bs and sold by frauds like James Clear.

Yeah, in the long run ... we'll all be dead. But still, good advice the younger one is. If my son only considered to work on what he wants persistently instead of floating through life with dead-end jobs, dead-end relationships, dead-end everyone else is guilty. That is what I like in America: you want it? Move your butt or you won't have it!

Don't remember if it was you who wrote about "why losing in chess hurts so much". That gave me new insights.

Yep, go on.

Yeah, in the long run ... we'll all be dead. But still, good advice the younger one is. If my son only considered to work on what he wants persistently instead of floating through life with dead-end jobs, dead-end relationships, dead-end everyone else is guilty. That is what I like in America: you want it? Move your butt or you won't have it! Don't remember if it was you who wrote about "why losing in chess hurts so much". That gave me new insights. Yep, go on.

I am with @mojo_jojo_1985 (and others) here. This example is indeed crude, as that 1% gets bigger and bigger every day. It gets applied to the current strength, not to the start strength. That is exponential growth.

In reality the improvement would be more of a constant value. It would get applied to the start strength, not to the current strength. That is linear growth.

I hacked together a quick script here: https://www.online-python.com/BHkGVdEltS

As you can see, if one has a start strength of 1, and improves 1% every day, and trains for 100 years:

  • If the 1% gets applied to the start strength (linear growth) then their strength at age 100 will be 366.
  • If the 1% gets applied to the current strength (exponential growth) then their strength at age 100 will be 53 720 873 596 846 127 279 561 080 139 818 150 967 598 987 817 639 777 297 298 078 433 172 214 022 136 115 006 643 961 002 037 514 092 445 364 812 476 510 579 014 485 672 028 644 845 362 227 559 500 934 545 408.
I am with @mojo_jojo_1985 (and others) here. This example is indeed crude, as that 1% gets bigger and bigger every day. It gets applied to the _current_ strength, not to the start strength. That is exponential growth. In reality the improvement would be more of a constant value. It would get applied to the _start_ strength, not to the current strength. That is linear growth. I hacked together a quick script here: https://www.online-python.com/BHkGVdEltS As you can see, if one has a start strength of 1, and improves 1% every day, and trains for 100 years: * If the 1% gets applied to the start strength (linear growth) then their strength at age 100 will be 366. * If the 1% gets applied to the current strength (exponential growth) then their strength at age 100 will be 53 720 873 596 846 127 279 561 080 139 818 150 967 598 987 817 639 777 297 298 078 433 172 214 022 136 115 006 643 961 002 037 514 092 445 364 812 476 510 579 014 485 672 028 644 845 362 227 559 500 934 545 408.

When using the above code, one can guess that for beginners (ELO 1000) a daily improvement of 0.1% to 0.2% is doable. For an A-class player (ELO 2000) a daily improvement of up to 0.05% is doable. And for a GM (ELO 2500) a daily improvement of up to 0.02%. See this example: https://www.online-python.com/56Ouo2cHdC

This indicates that the growth curve is not linear but flattens more and more the higher the rating. FIDE statistics also show that, for example the ELO curve of Magnus Carlsen (All Years): https://ratings.fide.com/profile/1503014/chart

When using the above code, one can guess that for beginners (ELO 1000) a daily improvement of 0.1% to 0.2% is doable. For an A-class player (ELO 2000) a daily improvement of up to 0.05% is doable. And for a GM (ELO 2500) a daily improvement of up to 0.02%. See this example: https://www.online-python.com/56Ouo2cHdC This indicates that the growth curve is not linear but flattens more and more the higher the rating. FIDE statistics also show that, for example the ELO curve of Magnus Carlsen (All Years): https://ratings.fide.com/profile/1503014/chart

A great article.
I have some considerations though. I dont think a skill or knowledge can be measured in numbers. Because there is no measuring unit for such things, like units for length (metres, miles) or mass (kg, lb). Rating is measured in numbers, yes. But rating is a bit another thing, for example, it also depends on the opponents skills. So if your skill doesn`t change, after some time your rating will decrease because of the average skill growth, I think.
Anyway, to increase your rating by 1% every day would mean growth acceleration because after a month 1% would be much more than 1% at the commence. But growth naturally slows down with time.
I really like the main idea of consistency and gradual change.

A great article. I have some considerations though. I don`t think a skill or knowledge can be measured in numbers. Because there is no measuring unit for such things, like units for length (metres, miles) or mass (kg, lb). Rating is measured in numbers, yes. But rating is a bit another thing, for example, it also depends on the opponents` skills. So if your skill doesn`t change, after some time your rating will decrease because of the average skill growth, I think. Anyway, to increase your rating by 1% every day would mean growth acceleration because after a month 1% would be much more than 1% at the commence. But growth naturally slows down with time. I really like the main idea of consistency and gradual change.