Welcome to this week’s newsletter of Say Chess. The newsletter now goes out to 4,348 subscribers. If you have not yet subscribed consider doing it if you like subjects like chess improvement, chess book publishing, and articles about the chess world.
When I read Atomic Habits, my understanding of his chart was this: Since it is completely impossible to improve 37x at anything over the course of a year, we therefore can infer that 1% improvement daily is also impossible. Therefore, we should content ourselves with what feel like _extremely_ small consistent gains, because anything more is unrealistic.
"The philosophy of marginal gains is attributed to Sir Dave Brailsford and his tenure with British Cycling as performance director."
Truth is - widely known now but apparently not when Atomic Habits was written - Brailsford was heavily involved in doping.
Marginal Gains is a very useful theory in that regard. You get to explain significant performance improvement occuring despite no visible change in training / performance.
When I read Atomic Habits, my understanding of his chart was this: Since it is completely impossible to improve 37x at anything over the course of a year, we therefore can infer that 1% improvement daily is also impossible. Therefore, we should content ourselves with what feel like _extremely_ small consistent gains, because anything more is unrealistic.
"The philosophy of marginal gains is attributed to Sir Dave Brailsford and his tenure with British Cycling as performance director."
Truth is - widely known now but apparently not when Atomic Habits was written - Brailsford was heavily involved in doping.
Marginal Gains is a very useful theory in that regard. You get to explain significant performance improvement occuring despite no visible change in training / performance.
Why does the headline say "flawed"? 🤔