Science

Research on strategic talent runs from Adriaan de Groot (1946) through later critiques. Mechanisms are interacting systems.

Evidence percentages below are relative judgements for this atlas, not fabricated precise statistics. Named studies keep their published bands.

Findings

• 1946 · Adriaan de Groot — Masters see better positions Search depth was not the simple differentiator in his tasks.
• 1973 · Chase & Simon — Chunked position memory Expertise as trained vocabulary of patterns — order-of-magnitude counts, not a sacred 50,000.
• 1990s · Polgár sisters’ careers — A nurture-intensive household Three elites from one project; not a universal recipe.
• 2014 · Macnamara et al. — Practice ~26% in games Highest of their bands; still a minority.
• 2000s · Gobet / Ericsson — Templates plus designed study The expert-performance programme applied to chess.
• 2016 · Silver / Hassabis et al. (AlphaGo) — Machines change the opponent Human talent now includes using engines without becoming them.

Mechanisms

• Pattern vocabulary — Chunks and templates (Chase, Simon, Gobet).
• Selective search — Where to look, not only how deep.
• Opponent modelling — Theory of mind under a clock — overlap with interpersonal skill.
• Designed study — Openings and endgames as Ericsson hours; bullet spam is not the same variable.

Evidence

Debates

• Talent residuals after hours — Hambrick versus strong practice camps — the 2014 number is the peace treaty’s size estimate.
• Chess in schools as IQ policy — A political use the transfer data may not carry.
• Engine dependence — Whether study-with-machine grows or replaces human search.

Strategic talent: size the claim to the study. Interaction, not a 50/50 slogan, is the default model.

OriginsScienceSignsDevelopPracticeExemplarsMyths