This is just a shot in the dark but because of Serrals victory in GSL vs The World I just wondered: We heard from many progamers and other guys in the scene that talent is often kind of overrated and practice is the most important thing to get really good at Starcraft. But Serral being so much better than any other foreigner seems to kind of contradict this maxim.
We know that the player base in South Korea is much bigger than anywhere else. So the likelihood that great players rise from there is just a logical consequence. So could it be that we just almost never had such talented players in foreigner land like we always had a handful (or two) in South Korea? This is nothing new and the obvious counter argument would be that all foreign players combined should be as much as korean players and therefore there should be the same probability of some great talents to touch the game. So the main factors for South Koreas success must ly in their superior infrastructure and training regimen plus the density of so many players in such a small region which boosts competition, right?
But we know from the region lock that tough competition is not always the best thing to grow new talent. The region lock helped foreign talents to flourish and some new talents arised. The big competition hindered the somewhat talented players to be successful and become better while achieving that. How many of those somewhat talented players do we see in South Korea? The GSL Ro32 or former upper half of code A material? More of course but not that much more. One would assume that with the big South Korean player base (which is probably far more intrigued to compete than the foreign player base because it's probably impossible in South Korea to not get in touch with the esport scene as a starcraft player while in foreigner lands the "I just play the campaign and everything else is nonextistent for me"-attitude is a quite common thing) there would be more of them.
But the difference is: as a somewhat talented player somewhere in the nonkorean regions you will probably get some success because there are only very few players as good as you from your region. It's somewhat realistic to not get stomped everytime you get on a slightly bigger stage. You can take one step after another. And somewhere at the top you might be confronted with an unclimbable hurdle - but probably not until the Ro4 of a big tournament. Meanwhile in South Korea you'll already get stomped in the qualifiers for the only relevant tournament there is: GSL. How many of those somewhat talented players will be deterred from persevering until they break the wall because of the unbelievable superior 8 to 16 talents on the top of the SC2-olymp? Only the really stubborn guys who'll end up as those somewhat talented players and the real great talents will make it through this wall.
This would mean that the trying playerbase had to be much bigger than the 32 to 50 actual and almost GSL-players we have in South Korea seems to indicate. If we say that we have 10 talents of the calibre of Serral or almost Serral (considering ups and downs) in South Korea this would mean that we have to assume a seriously trying playerbase 10 times bigger in South Korea than in the rest of the world - IF talent is a bigger factor than we assumed so far, that is.
Who says that Serral doesn't practice a lot and is just talented? As far as I can tell, him being at the top of ladder proves he plays a lot and consistently in Europe. Moreover, GSL used to have Code A and Code S for that very basis of being bigger than '32 to 50' actual GSL players.
The reason koreans are generally is due to practice, the playerbase of KR pros vs foreign pros are probably similar in number and probably have a similar number of talents.
Of course when looking at any individual player, talent may come into play. Some people are obviously better at things than others. But it's impossible to know what players actually try harder than others.
Examples like Life and Taeja, even Maru before this year, are legendary players known for not practicing that much. Hell Taeja was playing Overwatch almost full time when he knocked out Zest (the current champ) out of the GSL. You see examples in other esports of players who don't seem to try that hard yet are more successful than most.
On August 06 2018 07:23 Fango wrote: The reason koreans are generally is due to practice, the playerbase of KR pros vs foreign pros are probably similar in number and probably have a similar number of talents.
Of course when looking at any individual player, talent may come into play. Some people are obviously better at things than others. But it's impossible to know what players actually try harder than others.
Examples like Life and Taeja, even Maru before this year, are legendary players known for not practicing that much. Hell Taeja was playing Overwatch almost full time when he knocked out Zest (the current champ) out of the GSL. You see examples in other esports of players who don't seem to try that hard yet are more successful than most.
Of course without practice nobody gets anywhere. But I highly doubt that Serral is the first foreigner who went full tryhard mode and practiced more than anybody else. Also the big number of such great talents in Korea in comparison to the nonkorean scene makes me wonder if the "playerbase" isn't took into consideration too undifferentiated. Or in other words: Could it be that the relevant playerbase is much bigger in South Korea than in the combined nonkorean regions?
Keep in mind Serral has been playing for years. The game may have a high skill ceiling, but most players plataeu in terms of skill after a while. If foreigners started tryharding as much as koreans (like Serral clearly does), then given a couple years, it's likely for them to reach similar skill.
Also, a notable point is that sc2 has had countless korean pros given the opportunity for full time practice (tryhard mode). And only the best 1/4 or 1/5 are still playing. At this stage in korean sc2, only the best are still around.
FlaSh also mentioned in his interviews long ago that he did a lot of mental practice, going through the decision trees that he would follow in his games. This sort of practice doesn't need practice partners and can be done just from VODs.
Of course, you can't become GM by only watching VODs, but regular practice complemented by this can make up somewhat for a practice partner deficiency. Serral's extremely crisp decision making could be a reflection of having thought through these sorts of scenarios countless times mentally already
From watching Serrals games and reading his interviews I think he trains smarter than other people. He doesnt mass games but perfects individual skills like scouting properly every game or doing his multiprong attacks. Like he said he thinks about the game and what a certain action does to his opponent. When attacking his main goal seems to be to tax the opponent's attention. Good opponents like Stats have unit in the correct location but they cant micro everywhere at once and cant fall back like Serral's attacking forces because this usually means losing a base. Same with his counterattacks, either he forces his opponent to micro their army and then sends in the lings or he sends the lings in first to get a seconds without the opponent's attention on the army.
never have i really believed in what talent stands for. talent describes special aptitude right? well instead, i believe that due to many different conditions, there's a difference in people for how quickly they pick up and learn something. if a skill or activity is to their liking, they're more likely to stick with it. that's about as far as that belief goes. as it is, that is the biggest outlying difference between people competing with one another passively. you could go into the general psyche of a player who does poorly across all games, and interview another player who does well instead. there will be huge differences in the way they speak about the game and treat their own progress while it is all relevant to winning over stronger opponents.
even if they make the same objective mental notes, one player does something about it, and the other does not. one player remembers the details, another would need to be constantly reminded somehow. these differences compound quickly.
in some ways there is a lot of trial and error that can be ignored entirely if you have the existing mentality to prevail through failure. if someone is satisfied with playing poorly in some aspect, you can be sure it affects the rest of their play--and in vice versa if a player learns to hate their play and constantly works towards better game states, they will almost always stress over the little details that compound into a larger difference in a game like this; even if their first ideas don't directly apply, a positive practice regimen (relatively) has already been set. in my opinion, this also has nothing to do with the idea of talent and more to do with personality and the willingness to treat a game seriously.
there's also open-mindedness and the honesty of the practice. when you are your only witness, do you really and truly practice to the best of your ability? do you treat each game with 100% of your capacity and what you understand as the ideal level of play? if you do not place the pressure on yourself and upgrade your play constantly and be good with your time, you end up wasting a lot of it. by bettering your current capacity to play 'well' but in a way that is constant and progressive, you are nearly guaranteed to be able to catch up quickly.
watching a lot of foreigners play, there are a lot of lazy portions of a game that serral cuts out, almost entirely. that is why he is more complete and is invariably better.
reynor focuses on reacting, TLO focuses on using units well and going against the norm, and serral focuses on closing out a game with his learned tools. in each of those examples there are outlying weaknesses--respectively that may be bleeding units due to movement issues, and losing focus on other regions of the map which then lowers the impact of your moves. but serral has learned to take strategies and tactics to apply peak performance to each task required of him. even if he makes mistakes, he can better apply a fix which would also require minimal change. i think the mentality is: there isn't a hole in your play that your hands and your attentiveness can't be ready for. his games are shorter on average and that tends to indicate that there are fewer mistakes and many more important cogs turning at the same time. if your opponent is ready for you at all turns, you are already lagging behind in everything you do, even if winning is possible. there needs to be something you can be ahead in some meaningful and actionable way.
so why are there many more south korean professionals than everywhere else? well there's an answer that is quite simple and could remain simple for as long as the game retains a scene. what motivation is there to devote yourself and play the game to that level? you could ask this in more broad sense to catch other demographics, like the female playerbase in all of competitive gaming. if you have to work much harder and play with a disadvantage to get adequate practice (high ping), does that not also erode your motivation over time? the koreans take the game more seriously on average... and on an objective level, being serious means winning against the contemporary best-of-the-best. you could say they're more talented, but none of that is measurable in the first place. you can not measure the impact of somebody else's practice. you really can only look at yourself and conjure up the best version/revision at all times.
Tesla once said : If he [Thomas Edison] had a needle to find in a haystack, he would not stop to reason where it was most likely to be, but would proceed at once with the feverish diligence of a bee, to examine straw after straw until he found the object of his search. … Just a little theory and calculation would have saved him ninety percent of his labor.
Not saying the less talented don't try to come up with theories and reasonings but a more talented man would have done it sooner and be better in this aspect.
The amount of practise Koreans do is probably more harmful than helpful if anything. There's only so much time you can do something with full concentration and you'll need to get enough rest afterwards. Practising through the night won't help you get any better.
There is no substitute for hard work. Talent on top of hard work is, for me, better than mere talent. I think one of recent articles about generalising a player's skill and abilities in SC2 relates to this a great deal. We should never undermine a player's work ethic and label it as mere talent.
On August 06 2018 07:01 Charoisaur wrote: Talent was always the biggest factor for how good a player is. Practice is only relevant when two equally talented players face each other
Practice was always the biggest factor for how good a player is. Talent is only relevant when two equally practiced players face each other
...
i play ~10 games a week at most. even if i'd be as talented as one of the pros (i'm not) i will loose to anybody that played > 30000 games.
talent makes the practice more efficient, but without practice no talent will help you
On August 06 2018 07:01 Charoisaur wrote: Talent was always the biggest factor for how good a player is. Practice is only relevant when two equally talented players face each other
Practice was always the biggest factor for how good a player is. Talent is only relevant when two equally practiced players face each other
...
i play ~10 games a week at most. even if i'd be as talented as one of the pros (i'm not) i will loose to anybody that played > 30000 games.
talent makes the practice more efficient, but without practice no talent will help you
I'm pretty sure there are some players who play 10 games a week who would just slap other players with 30k+ games. If you don't have the talent you will never reach pro level no matter how hard you practice. There are a lot of master / low GM playres who play more than most pros but aren't anywhere as good. Practice is irrelevant when the gap in talent becomes too high.
Just think of the returners like MMA, PartinG etc. Haven't touched the game in years and still are instantly better than people who have grinded endlessly during that time.
On August 06 2018 08:57 nanaoei wrote: never have i really believed in what talent stands for. talent describes special aptitude right? well instead, i believe that due to many different conditions, there's a difference in people for how quickly they pick up and learn something. if a skill or activity is to their liking, they're more likely to stick with it. that's about as far as that belief goes.
Hmmm - I don't think that talent can be described as pure skill/ability which is lying there and just explodes when activated. So I agree with you: talent is probably a more or less complex combination of abilities which makes it easier to learn certain things. Liking this stuff is helpful of course but I don't think that you have to like something to be talented in it. A good example is being gifted for languages: you'll have to learn everything like anybody else but it will stick easier to you and you'll be better in grasping the structures of a language - I think that is talent.
so why are there many more south korean professionals than everywhere else? well there's an answer that is quite simple and could remain simple for as long as the game retains a scene. what motivation is there to devote yourself and play the game to that level? you could ask this in more broad sense to catch other demographics, like the female playerbase in all of competitive gaming. if you have to work much harder and play with a disadvantage to get adequate practice (high ping), does that not also erode your motivation over time? the koreans take the game more seriously on average... and on an objective level, being serious means winning against the contemporary best-of-the-best. you could say they're more talented, but none of that is measurable in the first place. you can not measure the impact of somebody else's practice. you really can only look at yourself and conjure up the best version/revision at all times.
So, the assumption that koreans take the game more seriously on average kind of proves my point: more seriously trying players means a bigger relevant playerbase from which statistically more talents will arise. That doesn't mean that Koreans are more talented and that never was my point. Instead my point is: talent will be evenly spread over the world and having a better infrastructure can only be helpful to find and support great talent but the Serrals, Marus, Lifes, Taejas, Innovations, Stephanos, Neebs, Rains, Zests (and so on) will make it to the top no matter in what conditions they live, as long as they're existentially secure and can play the game alot in a somewhat challenging competition. This means that we have so many more of those players in South Korea can only be caused by a much bigger player pool of people getting into the game seriously enough.
On August 06 2018 15:02 uummpaa wrote: Talent was always the biggest factor for how good a player is. Practice is only relevant when two equally talented players face each other
Just think of the returners like MMA, PartinG etc. Haven't touched the game in years and still are instantly better than people who have grinded endlessly during that time.
Because both of them have grinded the game for much, much longer and harder before they took a break.
Talent and practice existence both on a scale and most people won't deny their existence, but talking about this topic as if practice can't compensate for both up until a high level is wrong imo.
This entire discussion is quite worthless because we don't even got a way to separate innate talent from, for example, having a better practice schedule.
Back in the day, Stephano was publicly admitting he barely practices, yet he was winning left and right. Some people are just prodigies. Serral doesn't seem to be the same, he talks about focusing on the game a lot.
On August 06 2018 15:02 uummpaa wrote: Talent was always the biggest factor for how good a player is. Practice is only relevant when two equally talented players face each other
Just think of the returners like MMA, PartinG etc. Haven't touched the game in years and still are instantly better than people who have grinded endlessly during that time.
Because both of them have grinded the game for much, much longer and harder before they took a break.
Talent and practice existence both on a scale and most people won't deny their existence, but talking about this topic as if practice can't compensate for both up until a high level is wrong imo.
This entire discussion is quite worthless because we don't even got a way to separate innate talent from, for example, having a better practice schedule.
this exactly
thats why i wrote the exact inverse of the first statement, if both of them are equally true, than it oversimplifies the matter pretty hard.
On August 06 2018 19:02 opisska wrote: Back in the day, Stephano was publicly admitting he barely practices, yet he was winning left and right. Some people are just prodigies. Serral doesn't seem to be the same, he talks about focusing on the game a lot.
"Admitting" lol it was an obvious facade that some people bought into for some reason, what he actually admitted after a while was that he did practice a good amount and the things he says are just for showmanship.
When was the last time you saw a new face rise to to the top in korea? Every single active korean pro is a product of the sc1 scene, i have no source i think even maru was a practice partner up until the switch to sc2. Korean scene had an active amateur scene back then, local competition to find the best player in a district for example, the game was on tv and in general almost mainstream. All the famous korean players were part of huge clans by the name of by, white or Dream.t. Maybe someone with more insight can give info on the structure within a clan?
Well these players got drafted by the teams, at the beginning just as practice partner you could make it to the b team. The b teamers were sparring partners for the a team and had to practice even more hours. Players had to acquire the kespa pro licence by winning a courage tournament just to get to play game on stage.Courage Tournament)
It took jaedong 10 tries to to win a courage tournament, would you say he is talented? "i participated in Courage a total of 10 times and of the 10 times i got knocked out 9 times and in terms of time, it took about 2 years" (source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVfSxOEAavY)
SK telecom alone had over 20 players under contract 09/10. Talent will only get you so far, the pressure to perform every day via inhouse rankings, sleeping in a room with 4 other players, the crazy practice schedule ... Im sure some very talented players were unable to adept to this militaristic structure, also imagine telling your parents you are going to join a team house, no education or income for years to come.
The current generation of players in korea is also its last. Curious if some of the round of 32 players have a second job at this point. From what i know all the young koreans play pubg or league. Maybe the korean ladder has a 10 year old very talented player, he has fun but in his class everyone plays the popular game. Its likely he will quit sc to stay within his social circle, he may overcome this hurdle but the lack of a support structure will make his journey almost impossible.
must watch sources: STATE OF PLAY - Starcraft documentary wcg starcraft documentary:
Well that's still huge considering how big the overall population is in relation to the number of players. And I never said that earlier stages of SC2 aren't relevant. My question is not how the future of SC2 in Korea looks like but how important talent is to get to the top. The next question is, how far you have to go in SC2 to let your talent carry you on (of course always in combination with much practice because nobody can compete without practice). This "how far do I go"-attitude might be the real defining factor on how big the relevant playerbase for our question actually is or was.
When was the last time you saw a new face rise to to the top in korea? Every single active korean pro is a product of the sc1 scene, i have no source i think even maru was a practice partner up until the switch to sc2.
Maru was 13 when he competed in his first GSL. He needed several years on prime to get to the top. I highly doubt that he couldn't have done that without the broodwar scene. But this discussion is not relevant for my question anyway.
I think the line between talent and practice is a bit fuzzy. Good players are always talented, but they are remarkably good at practicing too. Practice isn't just about grinding a certain amount of hours, but also to monitor what the practice should look like. Detecting errors in one's play, discovering weaknesses, learning how to train efficiently are skills that can only be attained by carefully designing your training to fit your goals and to know how much time that is needed for each separate problem.
In regards to Serral you must not overlook how long and how hard hes been playing. Yeah he has talent no doubt and it finally shows but hes been on the top of EU ladder for about five years. He has played tens of LANs and hundreds of online cups. I often feel like people think Serral just took the scene by storm last year where "out of nowhere" he started finishing in TOP 8s for the first time and now just mere year after hes literal god. To get good at Starcraft takes insane ammount of time more than people are willing to admit. All the "new guys" like Reynor, Elazer, Serral .. have been playing on top of EU for years.
On August 07 2018 17:08 Veriol wrote: In regards to Serral you must not overlook how long and how hard hes been playing. Yeah he has talent no doubt and it finally shows but hes been on the top of EU ladder for about five years. He has played tens of LANs and hundreds of online cups. I often feel like people think Serral just took the scene by storm last year where "out of nowhere" he started finishing in TOP 8s for the first time and now just mere year after hes literal god. To get good at Starcraft takes insane ammount of time more than people are willing to admit. All the "new guys" like Reynor, Elazer, Serral .. have been playing on top of EU for years.
Yep, very true.
Most people however don't care or even know about those small online cups and smaller LANs, which is a shame.
On August 06 2018 06:07 fronkschnonk wrote: This would mean that the trying playerbase had to be much bigger than the 32 to 50 actual and almost GSL-players we have in South Korea seems to indicate. If we say that we have 10 talents of the calibre of Serral or almost Serral (considering ups and downs) in South Korea this would mean that we have to assume a seriously trying playerbase 10 times bigger in South Korea than in the rest of the world - IF talent is a bigger factor than we assumed so far, that is.
All your assumptions are false, currently the "trying playerbase" is not 10x bigger. Again korea: 51 773 ranked players this season, 26700 games per day and europe: 147928 ranked/70000 games per day. Looks like Koreans are slightly more active on the ladder.
I felt like i had to give you a history lesson on the Korean system and the process on how these players were forged. The amount of korean talents vs foreigner is solely based on the past and the infrastructure/popularity of sc1. When both sc1/sc2 merged in 2012, sc2 had over 100 professional Korean players for a couple of month. When Kespa teams disbanded 2015 it was down to 45 active, the following month and years more retired.
Without blizzard supporting the scene we would sit here and argue that Korea has 1 or 2 talents thats on the level of serral, so yeah all your talent arguments and the "trying playerbase" are based on nothing. Check out the code s qualifiers, not a single new face from the country that once had a huge pool of young talents.
Serral is a very talented player, the reality is that Serral has been one of the best foreigners for three years, since the last year of HOTS (steadily finishing top 3 in GM league), Serral is indisputably one of the best foreigners. But it also has to be said that the lack of playable depth and the ability ceiling of SC2 compared to Brood War, result in the best players of SC2 being very close to each other. Even if the professional teams returned to Korea and put the best Koreans in a house to play 12 hours a day, Serral, Neeb, Showtime and Special would still be very close or at the same level as the Koreans, they would still be very dangerous rivals. It's the SC2 problem, it lacks playable depth and a higher ceiling of ability. On the other hand the game has design problems and as a consequence of these problems it also has a balance problem.
To every wannabe progamers here I really recommend you to read book: The art of learning. Its written by former chess world champion and thai chi martials arts world champion (same guy has reached the master level in two different crafts). In this book he explains you principles of how to learn and master things. He used same principles with those two different sports (chess and tai chi) to become champion. So that book is about learning. You really have to become master of learning if you want to become very good in starcraft. That could mean to learn ways to learn that many other people would just call talent
There are many other things than just playing you can do to get better. In last interview serral emphasized thinking for his way to learn starcraft (and to play against korean terrans) but the real question could have been that interviewer didnt ask was that: How are you practicing starcraft by thinking? can you explain your thinking in details? and more detailed questions about his thinking strategies. And definitely Serral has unconscious thinking competencies. But you can learn these competencies if you have good mentor or tools (books, coach, etc.)
And in another finnish TV interview he has mentioned that he plays just 5-6 hours per day only. That seems little for progamer. But I think he didnt count thinking in this number. He does some other things as well. But the thing is that you will get a lot of leverage if you know how to think, how to use your mind, how to use mental techniques, rehearse game situations in your mind etc. also meditation (or similar ways to relax and focus your mind) could be beneficial for controlling your self and handling stress. There are other good books and resources as well, learn to learn things and learn to use your minds effectively for learning.
It has to be noted that 5-6 hours a day might seem little for a bw/sc2 progamer, but in the elite athletic world, that's normal amout of hours. In other games, especially team games, that might even be considered excessive amount of training.
On August 07 2018 22:40 ionONE wrote: All your assumptions are false, currently the "trying playerbase" is not 10x bigger. Again korea: 51 773 ranked players this season, 26700 games per day and europe: 147928 ranked/70000 games per day. Looks like Koreans are slightly more active on the ladder.
Like I said: it's just speculation, of course. But your numbers don't tell anything. Just being ranked is by no means "trying". The real question is, how do players of each region approach the game, how many of them are trying seriously enough to let a possible talent kick in.
You really don't have to give me a history lesson. I'm quite well aware of how korean broodwar infrastructure worked. I think your approach is quite onesided. Maru, Life, Dark, Taeja, Dream, Parting - those outstanding talents were all forged in esf-infrastructure which tried to imitate kespa but never had the same resources to be comparable. Still, they were and are able to compete with the guys who switched from broodwar to SC2.
But again: my argument is not so much about current or future SC2-development but much more about the factors which led to the current situation. You mentioned some of those factors and I'm asking how someone like serral, who never experienced anything just nearly broodwar/korean infrastructure, who did not compete with the best most of the time, who not even seems to play the same amount of what top korean pros probably play. There are two possible answeres: Serral is just more talented than anybody because of getting so good despite not having korean circumstances. Or korean talents stem for a far more bigger pool of players who are relevant for this to happen.
In Starcraft 2 its all about practice because the most important thing is to know everything about the game, then know how to control everything using the mouse, keyboard, then understand whats happening in game. Talent is something like muscle memory like punching straight in the target, but in starcraft 2 player must not only remember how to control units but also understand what to do next and whats happening in macro perceptive, I think that somebody who played the game for 50000 hours has more so called ''TALENT '' than somebody with good reflexes after playing 10000 hours.
I presonally believe that pro players dont do anything else but play the game something like 6 - 10 hours a day and thas why they are so good at it.
For me talent is not about being a fast learner. It’s about being the best when everybody trains a lot, among other talented players, at the top of a game.
For example, Grubby was a very talented player in spite of being a slow learner according to him. In BW, the most talented was Flash, because when everybody trained equally hard (you couldn’t really train harder), he stayed at the top of the food chain.
However, in a game such as sc2, the skill set required can vary a lot with each patch, or extension, so I don’t think you really have time to see who is the most talented overall, you just see which group of players is the most talented.
Practice makes talent shine ultimately, intelligent practice even more so.
What would be considered talent is Starcraft 2 ? 1) Good general IQ of all sorts of things, 2) Experience playing similar games or previous version of the game so that you would know what its all about, 3) Good reflexes, experience when controlling mouse, keyboard etc. These traits should give enough talent to control units in the game, understand gameplay mechanics and economy, also it would allow the player to improve, Otherwise, if lets say a child plays the game who is 10 yeras old or so, he without good IQ, general knowledge of the game and good experience with mouse and keyboard would have almost no talent to play the game, he would have something like 300 matches in silver league or bronze with very little progress and he would be considered untalented player.
It's not just how much time you put into practice, it's how effective your practice is.
To me there isn't such a thing as "talent", it's better to split it up into things like:
The mind and body you are born with Environment you were born and raised in Your life experiencee Skills built up through life
These above things are what people tend to refer to as "talent", but it's not like you just "have" it. You gain many skills and experiences throughout life that propel you to learn faster at certain things than others, and some people simply put more focus on improving throughout daily life and challenging themselves than other people.
On the other side of things there's also practice (quantity and quality), the support and guidance you have to help you learn, and your mindset.
The first group of things can be important in determining how adept you are at learning something before you commit to putting time into learning it seriously, kind of like your starting point or your potential, but the latter is still the bulk of it, as it is where the actual practical skills are built.
In any case, the two groups do go in parallel too as you learn something, since you continue to gain new experience and develop new skills and understand new concepts, etc., so your potential is always changing. They aren't cleanly split into two groups, there is overlap as well.
And I agree that it's pointless to try to talk about what is "talent" and what is "practice". You can't split it up like that, and there's no way to determine or measure them anyway. What we do know however, is that there is no reason to believe that one cannot better themselves. Humans can always improve and change, there is no concrete limit.
You can always be very good at something with sufficient practice and studying, even if you were considered not adept at it initially, even if it takes a long time. However, you cannot automatically be good at something without any practice or studying. There is a limit to how well your previous life experiences and skills can translate to whatever new thing you're trying to learn. And mindset is a thing that can trump both "talent" and "practice", for better or for worse.
Look, in Korea, people practiced in the same team house, with the same coaches, on the same practice schedule. They practiced EQUAL AMOUNTS, yet some people had better results than others. Some were super stars, some were relegated to dish washers. Talent is most evident here. Work ethic was identical.
On August 11 2018 15:52 CicadaSC wrote: Look, in Korea, people practiced in the same team house, with the same coaches, on the same practice schedule. They practiced EQUAL AMOUNTS, yet some people had better results than others. Some were super stars, some were relegated to dish washers. Talent is most evident here. Work ethic was identical.
That isn't the whole picture tho. Life experiences were still different, like maybe some started early because their parents were supportive and/or from a more wealthy family (meaning easier access to good computers and internet), maybe others didn't have this luck. They still trained in the same facility, but some started with an advantage and had the right mindset because the environment they grew up in helped them.
I'm not saying that pure talent doesn't exist, but other factors should be considered as well.
On August 07 2018 23:05 Hannibaal wrote: Serral is a very talented player, the reality is that Serral has been one of the best foreigners for three years, since the last year of HOTS (steadily finishing top 3 in GM league), Serral is indisputably one of the best foreigners. But it also has to be said that the lack of playable depth and the ability ceiling of SC2 compared to Brood War, result in the best players of SC2 being very close to each other. Even if the professional teams returned to Korea and put the best Koreans in a house to play 12 hours a day, Serral, Neeb, Showtime and Special would still be very close or at the same level as the Koreans, they would still be very dangerous rivals. It's the SC2 problem, it lacks playable depth and a higher ceiling of ability. On the other hand the game has design problems and as a consequence of these problems it also has a balance problem.
What'swrong with you, you are so insecure, all of your post are about Brood War being greater than SC2 rofl
there is players who played sc2 just as much as serral and are gold league.
talent IS the biggest factor in highly competetive games. Anyone saying something else.
This (highly american) "you can become whatever you want if you work hard enough" is just wrong on so many levels and produced a generation of mostly liberal, confident, dumb people
On August 11 2018 23:30 sc-darkness wrote: What's talent? If it's the right skill set and enough practice, then yes. If it's some magical power, then I don't agree there's such a thing.
it's the ability to learn quickly. it's the physical ability to think fast as light on the spot and move your mouse accordingly (different humans will peak at different levels of it, no matter the pracitse).
Mozart listened to 2 hour long concerts ONCE as a 5 year old and could immediatly replay the whole thing almost perfectly and write it down.
Try to teach that to a million kids and one or two will succeed.
On August 12 2018 03:13 KalWarkov wrote: there is players who played sc2 just as much as serral and are gold league.
talent IS the biggest factor in highly competetive games. Anyone saying something else.
And you sample size for this is what, 2 players?
even if it would just be 2 players (which it is not, the gold-diamond caliber player with 20k games are plenty, there is other pros like serral, say maru, jaedong, reynor...), that would be enough to prove my point in this case.
There is distinct differences in learning ability, peak of performance of an individual
On the contrary, I remember some Korean pro (iloveoov I think?), who said that amongst progamers, the one who practice more will always outperform those that are more talented.
On August 11 2018 23:30 sc-darkness wrote: What's talent? If it's the right skill set and enough practice, then yes. If it's some magical power, then I don't agree there's such a thing.
it's the ability to learn quickly. it's the physical ability to think fast as light on the spot and move your mouse accordingly (different humans will peak at different levels of it, no matter the pracitse).
Mozart listened to 2 hour long concerts ONCE as a 5 year old and could immediatly replay the whole thing almost perfectly and write it down.
Try to teach that to a million kids and one or two will succeed.
On August 12 2018 03:13 KalWarkov wrote: there is players who played sc2 just as much as serral and are gold league.
talent IS the biggest factor in highly competetive games. Anyone saying something else.
And you sample size for this is what, 2 players?
even if it would just be 2 players (which it is not, the gold-diamond caliber player with 20k games are plenty, there is other pros like serral, say maru, jaedong, reynor...), that would be enough to prove my point in this case.
There is distinct differences in learning ability, peak of performance of an individual
The number of game isn't equal to practice, I would be way better if I spend time I put in SC2 to actually try to get better instead of just having fun. Same way pro-gaming house era Kespa player were way better not because they practice more, or had more talent then the rest but because they had an environnement which help them practiced better then everyone else.
Of course talent is important. Hard work beats talent when talent doesn't work, but all things being equal the person with talent will be lightyears ahead of the person without it. You see the same result in other areas, with IQ being the best indicator of how (financially) successful someone will be in life.
On August 11 2018 15:52 CicadaSC wrote: Look, in Korea, people practiced in the same team house, with the same coaches, on the same practice schedule. They practiced EQUAL AMOUNTS, yet some people had better results than others. Some were super stars, some were relegated to dish washers. Talent is most evident here. Work ethic was identical.
That isn't the whole picture tho. Life experiences were still different, like maybe some started early because their parents were supportive and/or from a more wealthy family (meaning easier access to good computers and internet), maybe others didn't have this luck. They still trained in the same facility, but some started with an advantage and had the right mindset because the environment they grew up in helped them.
I'm not saying that pure talent doesn't exist, but other factors should be considered as well.
Sure you start with many different advantages! Your ability to cope with hardship, IQ, your health physically and mentally, your motivation, I would call these things part of talent.
On August 11 2018 15:52 CicadaSC wrote: Look, in Korea, people practiced in the same team house, with the same coaches, on the same practice schedule. They practiced EQUAL AMOUNTS, yet some people had better results than others. Some were super stars, some were relegated to dish washers. Talent is most evident here. Work ethic was identical.
That isn't the whole picture tho. Life experiences were still different, like maybe some started early because their parents were supportive and/or from a more wealthy family (meaning easier access to good computers and internet), maybe others didn't have this luck. They still trained in the same facility, but some started with an advantage and had the right mindset because the environment they grew up in helped them.
I'm not saying that pure talent doesn't exist, but other factors should be considered as well.
Sure you start with many different advantages! Your ability to cope with hardship, IQ, your health physically and mentally, your motivation, I would call these things part of talent.
You would call a person's health and motivation part of talent?
Are we just completely redefining words however we please then, to the point where they're nowhere near similar to any accepted dictionary definition?
Ask Michael Jordan, Wayne Gretzky, or Tiger Woods.
As the German poster said, everyone at the top level plays a lot. Practice and experience become a factor when two equally talented people meet each other.
I think the reason people are reluctant to consider talent a factor is because the idea of innate talent is quite uncomfortable.
First of all, it puts a ceiling on human achievement. Try as I might, at 5.8', playing in the NBA is literally out of reach for me. Yet that kind of disrupts this notion of a blank sleight. Overcoming all odds by hard work is a much more appealing narrative than just having the athletic equivalent of a ten inch dick.
It's completely non-controversial to say that different people have different physical characteristics, yet somehow we're supposed to assume that our most demanding organ is exempt from that.
Secondly, nobody likes to admit that East Asians are, on average, slightly smarter than most other ethnic groups. In a game that's cerebral to a large extent, where differences snowball both in-game and without, the ripple of even a slight average IQ advantage can make the difference between domination and being solid Code A.
On August 11 2018 15:52 CicadaSC wrote: Look, in Korea, people practiced in the same team house, with the same coaches, on the same practice schedule. They practiced EQUAL AMOUNTS, yet some people had better results than others. Some were super stars, some were relegated to dish washers. Talent is most evident here. Work ethic was identical.
That isn't the whole picture tho. Life experiences were still different, like maybe some started early because their parents were supportive and/or from a more wealthy family (meaning easier access to good computers and internet), maybe others didn't have this luck. They still trained in the same facility, but some started with an advantage and had the right mindset because the environment they grew up in helped them.
I'm not saying that pure talent doesn't exist, but other factors should be considered as well.
Sure you start with many different advantages! Your ability to cope with hardship, IQ, your health physically and mentally, your motivation, I would call these things part of talent.
You would call a person's health and motivation part of talent?
Are we just completely redefining words however we please then, to the point where they're nowhere near similar to any accepted dictionary definition?
anything that comes naturally I would consider talent. Wanting to take care of yourself, eat healthy, exercise. Not everyone wants or cares about that. And for motivation, intrinsic motivation is what im talking about.
On August 11 2018 15:52 CicadaSC wrote: Look, in Korea, people practiced in the same team house, with the same coaches, on the same practice schedule. They practiced EQUAL AMOUNTS, yet some people had better results than others. Some were super stars, some were relegated to dish washers. Talent is most evident here. Work ethic was identical.
The people who had the best results were the ones who could best tolerate those insane practice schedules! If you changed the practice schedule and kept everyone identical, you'd have a different set of superior players. Now how do you know who has the most talent?
I think there are maybe four things needed for success: understanding the game, being able to execute gameplans, psychology, and work ethic.
There are some people who show great understanding of the game and great execution when you consider how few hours they play. This might be some very infrequent player who can get GM whenever he wants. There are other people who compete at the highest level and are still able to demonstrate a better understanding of the game than them or they can execute gameplans better than them. For example you might say Taeja had some insane execution or Fruitdealer had some insane understanding of the game, even when up against people spending lots of time and effort on improving execution and understanding. So, they distinguished themselves even when compared to the best.
For work ethic, you can say some people have a "talent" for work ethic in the sense that it's never much of a struggle for them to do as much work as they think is necessary. Other people struggle to put in the work but they force themselves to do it and ultimately put the work in. And still other people do less than they feel they ought to and so they don't reach their potential.
For psychology, this is about playing better or worse when you're in the grand finals of a major tournament. It's about playing well in your worst matchup or playing well against a player who is very good recently or has historically been very good against you in particular. It's about going to Korea and beating all the best Koreans. It's also about breaking through mental barriers in practice. Should you reach top 16 GM EU like most other EU pros and hover around there and then just prep for tournaments, or is it possible to reach 400 MMR higher than all other EU pros? There's always a danger of settling. If you understand how a matchup is currently being played at the highest level, can you figure out how to take it another step and have confidence your tweak will work against the best players in the world?
I don't know about Serral but I think that psychology has held a lot of players back, especially outside of Korea since it seems only Koreans really ever seem to have the confidence that they're the best in the world. I don't know if Serral has any arrogance or excessive confidence, but I think at the very least he must have something that enables him to think more openly and not be inhibited by certain expectations, barriers, mental blocks etc. He works on his game and constantly improves it and then goes and plays well in major tournaments.
People can work on improving their ability to improve these four areas in case they are naturally bad at any of them. Talented people are good in these areas without having to work at it.
On August 12 2018 03:29 Ej_ wrote: On the contrary, I remember some Korean pro (iloveoov I think?), who said that amongst progamers, the one who practice more will always outperform those that are more talented.
Meanwhile Taeja knocked Zest out of the GSL (the season after he won) while playing overwatch all day.
There's an obvious correlation between work and performance, but it's not perfect when comparing one person to another. Even in other esports you see examples. In counterstrike guys like Shox and f0rest have been well known to not take the game seriously at all. Yet they've outperformed the vast majority of players, a large portion of which will have almost certainly been more committed.
On August 12 2018 07:42 hobbyistGamedev wrote: Secondly, nobody likes to admit that East Asians are, on average, slightly smarter than most other ethnic groups. In a game that's cerebral to a large extent, where differences snowball both in-game and without, the ripple of even a slight average IQ advantage can make the difference between domination and being solid Code A.
I would be cautious with such data. While I approve of your point about talent in general, I don't think that it can be called a solved issue why East Asian have a better IQ on average. The IQ in itself is a highly problematic concept and it just tests stuff which is considered as intelligent by our modern society while performing well in it is proven to be a matter of being familiar with thought patterns of this modern society.
I think talent plays a big role. I got into masters (2%) with about 400 wins. I started in bronze. I wasnt coached, i didnt watch my own replays, i didnt watch Day9 etc. Before StarCraft 2 I didnt know about hotkeys. Then at the same time some people are trying really hard to progress and played 3-4 times more games and still were in plat.
On August 12 2018 07:42 hobbyistGamedev wrote: Secondly, nobody likes to admit that East Asians are, on average, slightly smarter than most other ethnic groups. In a game that's cerebral to a large extent, where differences snowball both in-game and without, the ripple of even a slight average IQ advantage can make the difference between domination and being solid Code A.
I would be cautious with such data. While I approve of your point about talent in general, I don't think that it can be called a solved issue why East Asian have a better IQ on average. The IQ in itself is a highly problematic concept and it just tests stuff which is considered as intelligent by our modern society while performing well in it is proven to be a matter of being familiar with thought patterns of this modern society.
In China, for instance, the competition is crazy high to learn English and get into a Western school because they believe it's the path to success. The reason they have such a high work ethic is because there's hundreds of thousands of other people just like them who are trying to get those coveted spots. That's why when they come to North America, they often distinguish themselves because they have that mentality of having to be the very best to succeed. I don't think that it really means that East Asians are slightly smarter; it's just a result of their culture.
I think the whole talent versus hard debate is best summed up with the analogy of the rubber band. The person with more innate talent has the bigger rubber band, but hard work is how far the rubber band is stretched. All other things equal, the person with the greater talent will stretch farther, but a person who works harder than the person with talent can reach or surpass the person with talent.
Same applies here with Starcraft. I remember hearing someone talk about Neeb being so good (last year) compared to other foreigners because he worked so much harder than them. He would just practice and practice and practice, and that was how he became so good. And, like other people said, it's about practicing effectively. It's why Taeja and Rain could do so well outside of the team house influence because they were able to adapt to being without the team house support. And in Taeja's case, it's because he didn't work well in that rigid structure.
On August 12 2018 07:42 hobbyistGamedev wrote: Secondly, nobody likes to admit that East Asians are, on average, slightly smarter than most other ethnic groups. In a game that's cerebral to a large extent, where differences snowball both in-game and without, the ripple of even a slight average IQ advantage can make the difference between domination and being solid Code A.
I would be cautious with such data. While I approve of your point about talent in general, I don't think that it can be called a solved issue why East Asian have a better IQ on average. The IQ in itself is a highly problematic concept and it just tests stuff which is considered as intelligent by our modern society while performing well in it is proven to be a matter of being familiar with thought patterns of this modern society.
I think the whole talent versus hard debate is best summed up with the analogy of the rubber band. The person with more innate talent has the bigger rubber band, but hard work is how far the rubber band is stretched. All other things equal, the person with the greater talent will stretch farther, but a person who works harder than the person with talent can reach or surpass the person with talent.
Only if the gap in talent is relatively small. If the gap is too big it can never be overcome no matter what. Take your average master player who grinds the game non-stop and then take Serral. The master player will never reach Serral's level regardless of how much he practices and how little Serral practices.
On August 11 2018 23:30 sc-darkness wrote: What's talent? If it's the right skill set and enough practice, then yes. If it's some magical power, then I don't agree there's such a thing.
it's the ability to learn quickly. it's the physical ability to think fast as light on the spot and move your mouse accordingly (different humans will peak at different levels of it, no matter the pracitse).
Mozart listened to 2 hour long concerts ONCE as a 5 year old and could immediatly replay the whole thing almost perfectly and write it down.
Try to teach that to a million kids and one or two will succeed.
On August 12 2018 03:13 KalWarkov wrote: there is players who played sc2 just as much as serral and are gold league.
talent IS the biggest factor in highly competetive games. Anyone saying something else.
And you sample size for this is what, 2 players?
even if it would just be 2 players (which it is not, the gold-diamond caliber player with 20k games are plenty, there is other pros like serral, say maru, jaedong, reynor...), that would be enough to prove my point in this case.
There is distinct differences in learning ability, peak of performance of an individual
This isn't a good indication though, for example, how do we know that serral and maru are the anomaly in the data set and not the silver/gold. Remember that only very few players play the amount play anything remotely similar to them. Keep also in mind that we have no idea how those low level players practice.
On August 12 2018 07:42 hobbyistGamedev wrote: Secondly, nobody likes to admit that East Asians are, on average, slightly smarter than most other ethnic groups. In a game that's cerebral to a large extent, where differences snowball both in-game and without, the ripple of even a slight average IQ advantage can make the difference between domination and being solid Code A.
I would be cautious with such data. While I approve of your point about talent in general, I don't think that it can be called a solved issue why East Asian have a better IQ on average. The IQ in itself is a highly problematic concept and it just tests stuff which is considered as intelligent by our modern society while performing well in it is proven to be a matter of being familiar with thought patterns of this modern society.
I think the whole talent versus hard debate is best summed up with the analogy of the rubber band. The person with more innate talent has the bigger rubber band, but hard work is how far the rubber band is stretched. All other things equal, the person with the greater talent will stretch farther, but a person who works harder than the person with talent can reach or surpass the person with talent.
The master player will never reach Serral's level regardless of how much he practices and how little Serral practices.
How do you know? Keep in mind that he was a low/mid level pro for quite some time. You would have said this 5 years ago.
On August 12 2018 07:42 hobbyistGamedev wrote: Secondly, nobody likes to admit that East Asians are, on average, slightly smarter than most other ethnic groups. In a game that's cerebral to a large extent, where differences snowball both in-game and without, the ripple of even a slight average IQ advantage can make the difference between domination and being solid Code A.
I would be cautious with such data. While I approve of your point about talent in general, I don't think that it can be called a solved issue why East Asian have a better IQ on average. The IQ in itself is a highly problematic concept and it just tests stuff which is considered as intelligent by our modern society while performing well in it is proven to be a matter of being familiar with thought patterns of this modern society.
I think the whole talent versus hard debate is best summed up with the analogy of the rubber band. The person with more innate talent has the bigger rubber band, but hard work is how far the rubber band is stretched. All other things equal, the person with the greater talent will stretch farther, but a person who works harder than the person with talent can reach or surpass the person with talent.
The master player will never reach Serral's level regardless of how much he practices and how little Serral practices.
How do you know? Keep in mind that he was a low/mid level pro for quite some time. You would have said this 5 years ago.
This isn't really hard to figure out. There are a lot of master players who play as much as Serral (he said he practices 5-6 hours a day which isn't that much). And seeing how quickly players like MMA reached a decent level again, Serral would still be lightyears ahead of the masters player after playing 0 games for an entire year.
Same is true in every other aspect of life/competition. There are people who put in 0 effort and get better grades than people studying all day every day.
On August 12 2018 07:42 hobbyistGamedev wrote: Secondly, nobody likes to admit that East Asians are, on average, slightly smarter than most other ethnic groups. In a game that's cerebral to a large extent, where differences snowball both in-game and without, the ripple of even a slight average IQ advantage can make the difference between domination and being solid Code A.
I would be cautious with such data. While I approve of your point about talent in general, I don't think that it can be called a solved issue why East Asian have a better IQ on average. The IQ in itself is a highly problematic concept and it just tests stuff which is considered as intelligent by our modern society while performing well in it is proven to be a matter of being familiar with thought patterns of this modern society.
I think the whole talent versus hard debate is best summed up with the analogy of the rubber band. The person with more innate talent has the bigger rubber band, but hard work is how far the rubber band is stretched. All other things equal, the person with the greater talent will stretch farther, but a person who works harder than the person with talent can reach or surpass the person with talent.
The master player will never reach Serral's level regardless of how much he practices and how little Serral practices.
How do you know? Keep in mind that he was a low/mid level pro for quite some time. You would have said this 5 years ago.
This isn't really hard to figure out. There are a lot of master players who play as much as Serral (he said he practices 5-6 hours a day which isn't that much). And seeing how quickly players like MMA reached a decent level again, Serral would still be lightyears ahead of the masters player after playing 0 games for an entire year.
Same is true in every other aspect of life/competition. There are people who put in 0 effort and get better grades than people studying all day every day.
You don't know that though. Lets assume we are only counting practice time where players are actively wanting to improve. I doubt there are any master players that practiced for over 5 hours a day, for over 5 days a week year long (assuming Serral does the same) spanning half a decade at this point.
Even if I where to give you that. We still don't know if they had the same practice method, same amount of help, did they try to do things extra on the side that took too much effort and deteriorated practice quality?
There are a ton of variables that all impact once's performance and you can't generalize stuff like "Ow, Serral is really good and master players practice the same amount, therefore the environment of the master players must be equal enough that only talent matters".
Also it is terrible disingenuous to pretend that a ex-world class player can return to a high level only because of talent, totally ignoring that he was a world class player before and already gained most of the skills required to play at that level.
You don't know that though. Lets assume we are only counting practice time where players are actively wanting to improve. I doubt there are any master players that practiced for over 5 hours a day, for over 5 days a week year long (assuming Serral does the same) spanning half a decade at this point.
Even if I where to give you that. We still don't know if they had the same practice method, same amount of help, did they try to do things extra on the side that took too much effort and deteriorated practice quality?
The thing is though, just because Serral has tournament matches on record dating back to WoL doesn't mean he has been practicing the same amount and with the same motivation and with the same mindset all throughout for "half a decade at this point" as you put it.
You don't know that though. Lets assume we are only counting practice time where players are actively wanting to improve. I doubt there are any master players that practiced for over 5 hours a day, for over 5 days a week year long (assuming Serral does the same) spanning half a decade at this point.
Even if I where to give you that. We still don't know if they had the same practice method, same amount of help, did they try to do things extra on the side that took too much effort and deteriorated practice quality?
The thing is though, just because Serral has tournament matches on record dating back to WoL doesn't mean he has been practicing the same amount and with the same motivation and with the same mindset all throughout for "half a decade at this point" as you put it.
I agree, we do not know what effort players put in their practice over a long period of time. But the posters that I am commenting on somehow seem to think you can assume this for the master players even though we know nothing about them, and set them equal to Serral (Which we do not know in depth either). Or at least set them equal to the point that only talent can be a the defining factor. I.E that players have reached their peak, used the best possible way to practice, had sufficient resources to perform in an optimal state by having enough time for practice and sustain them self's ect.
i haven't had much of a chance to play SC2 since SC:R. on the other hand i don't think talent is any different than it was before. even the most talented player has to play several games a day, 10 or more to be a top contender.
and every player will hit plateaus--even the most talented player can't continue to rise indefinitely. there's an element of skill and an element of talent.
On August 12 2018 23:53 sabas123 wrote: You don't know that though. Lets assume we are only counting practice time where players are actively wanting to improve. I doubt there are any master players that practiced for over 5 hours a day, for over 5 days a week year long (assuming Serral does the same) spanning half a decade at this point.
Even if I where to give you that. We still don't know if they had the same practice method, same amount of help, did they try to do things extra on the side that took too much effort and deteriorated practice quality?
There are a ton of variables that all impact once's performance and you can't generalize stuff like "Ow, Serral is really good and master players practice the same amount, therefore the environment of the master players must be equal enough that only talent matters".
Well, this point was made several times in this thread: talent is probably an ability to learn/grasp/adapt certain things better/faster than most others. I would say, this includes the ability how a player more or less instinctively approaches his practice, how he reflects on his played games, what stuff he tries out based on experiences made in the game and so on. Even if Serral would stand next to you and would give you a step-by-step instruction of what to do and what to think about, you still wouldn't be able to practice as effective as him, because those aren't your own thoughts.
People have different physical limatations, and virtues. We are not equal.
Talent without hardwork gets you nowhere. Hardwork is the most important thing because without it you stay at zero. However when two people work the same ammount, pyshical and mental caracteristics that come from our own genetics start to get into play. People refer to them as talent. But in reality they're simply genetics.
Some people run faster than others. Some people are naturally stronger, some are naturally skinnier. Sure, they skiny guy can get buff, but it will take longer.
There is a limit that is different to every person. Why Usain Bolt was faster than the other members of the Jamaican team? Or the other racers? Did they not train as hard? No, all the jamaican team used the same type of training. It was genetics. Talent.
Some people Will play 20k games and get to silver, some will win the GSL, and most will be somewhere in between.
So of course he puts a lot of effots, and of course if we average humans put effort into anything, we can get pretty good at almost anything, but then there will always be that guy that will put the same effor than us and be better. I think that's serral's case, as well as the case for many other pros.
However when two people work the same ammount, pyshical and mental caracteristics that come from our own genetics start to get into play. People refer to them as talent. But in reality they're simply genetics.
Assumptions. Can you proof this? I bet you cant because mainstream cant even proof it. It looks like its hearsay. Why dont you assume that the person that do it better has a better understanding of what he is doing? Maybe his thought process is better, or maybe he is just way more healthy in general so he can use his bodies energy much better as well.
There are for sure many more factors involved here which is ignored by the medium man because they trust what mainstream tells them.
However when two people work the same ammount, pyshical and mental caracteristics that come from our own genetics start to get into play. People refer to them as talent. But in reality they're simply genetics.
Assumptions. Can you proof this? I bet you cant because mainstream cant even proof it. It looks like its hearsay. Why dont you assume that the person that do it better has a better understanding of what he is doing? Maybe his thought process is better, or maybe he is just way more healthy in general so he can use his bodies energy much better as well.
There are for sure many more factors involved here which is ignored by the medium man because they trust what mainstream tells them.
And where does he get the better understanding from? Did he choose to have a better thought process? Did he choose to be more healthy? Or is it genetics i. e. talent?
I can't believe we're even arguing about this, this is getting ridicolous.
Did he choose to have a better thought process? Or is it genetics i. e. talent?
Gonna disagree with you hard here buddy. I know for a fact I wouldn't have had half the wits I have today (nor the academic and professional success) if it hadn't been for my parents thoroughly and explicitly teaching me critical thinking from a young age and all throughout growing up. And that's no genetics, that's someone else's hard work for your benefit.
Did he choose to have a better thought process? Or is it genetics i. e. talent?
Gonna disagree with you hard here buddy. I know for a fact I wouldn't have had half the wits I have today (nor the academic and professional success) if it hadn't been for my parents thoroughly and explicitly teaching me critical thinking from a young age and all throughout growing up. And that's no genetics, that's someone else's hard work for your benefit.
That may be true in some cases but I heavily doubt everyone who improves quicker than someone else at something does so because of good parenting. Don't ask for examples, it's common sense. Also that only affects the mental limitations, physical limitations are unaffected by 'parents teaching you critical thinking'
I can't believe though that nobody talked about races yet. Yes, talent is good to have. But as a foreigner you better hope you made the right choice at the start of your journey.
uThermal or Special aren't less talented than the other top foreigners, yet they won't have as much results because the race is that much harder to play. Serral wouldn't have won GSL vs The World as terran and that's a sad truth.
Did he choose to have a better thought process? Or is it genetics i. e. talent?
Gonna disagree with you hard here buddy. I know for a fact I wouldn't have had half the wits I have today (nor the academic and professional success) if it hadn't been for my parents thoroughly and explicitly teaching me critical thinking from a young age and all throughout growing up. And that's no genetics, that's someone else's hard work for your benefit.
That may be true in some cases but I heavily doubt everyone who improves quicker than someone else at something does so because of good parenting. Don't ask for examples, it's common sense. Also that only affects the mental limitations, physical limitations are unaffected by 'parents teaching you critical thinking'
It is common sense that better education leads to better educational scores. And I don't see how parenting is completely isolated from this.
On August 12 2018 23:53 sabas123 wrote: You don't know that though. Lets assume we are only counting practice time where players are actively wanting to improve. I doubt there are any master players that practiced for over 5 hours a day, for over 5 days a week year long (assuming Serral does the same) spanning half a decade at this point.
Even if I where to give you that. We still don't know if they had the same practice method, same amount of help, did they try to do things extra on the side that took too much effort and deteriorated practice quality?
There are a ton of variables that all impact once's performance and you can't generalize stuff like "Ow, Serral is really good and master players practice the same amount, therefore the environment of the master players must be equal enough that only talent matters".
Well, this point was made several times in this thread: talent is probably an ability to learn/grasp/adapt certain things better/faster than most others. I would say, this includes the ability how a player more or less instinctively approaches his practice, how he reflects on his played games, what stuff he tries out based on experiences made in the game and so on. Even if Serral would stand next to you and would give you a step-by-step instruction of what to do and what to think about, you still wouldn't be able to practice as effective as him, because those aren't your own thoughts.
Serral might have other thought processes than other players. But that does not mean that those same players could not develop those processes when given different teachings when they started out.
Since when do we have kids whose fingers are literally to weak to push buttons 3 times a second.
There's a difference between pushing random buttons and reaching 400 APM in a real game. I can't reach it. No matter how hard I try. Unless I bind my commandcenter on different control groups, then spam as hard as possible and leave right after. But that isn't a real game.