95%-ile isn't that good (2020)

The majority of my hobbies are non-competitive. If I get to one day be a 95th percentile hiker, I will be ecstatically happy. However I'd be willing to bet that for my (narrow) niche of software - I am well into the three 9s by virtue that while most backend engineers will have touched what I work on, they haven't done it for 10 years in a demanding environment.

I'm better than most people (maybe top 10% even) that "play a little." I'm (I assume) well below average for adult tournament player. The pool matters. I think if I took lessons and dedicated a serious 100-200 hrs over some period, I might reach 85th in my online pool.

95%-ile is currently ELO 2075... just under where junior masters (CMs) seem to be on lichess. I suspect that extra 150 elo would be a difficult jump... but maybe doable for me and other average players.

Chess is probably structured similar to athletics and other such pursuits. You can probably expect a similar distribution for weight lifting, for example. The average person can probably reach the level where everyone (including most over average people) is "actually trying" simply by being systematic. Where that point is varies, but weight lifting and chess have similar ranges of participation levels... like many hobbies.

In any case... I think unlike chess, it's worth focusing on either strategy or technique... not tactics.

Strategically defining the thing (chess is defined, but "software engineering" is malleable). Meaningfully selecting the pool. Actually deciding the value. Getting to top 10% rec chess player sounds fun. Getting to CM sounds arduous and pointless. There's not much value in being an entry level chess master... or power lifter.

Techniques, like the habit of planning a training plan, creating a strategic plan with goals, timelines and such... that's a valuable asset... very transferable. The tactics... not so much. Meanwhile, you don't need great tactics to get results, and tactical advice is the easiest advice to get.

Or, even: by throwing some deliberateness in to things we're doing, we can avoid a lot of frustration.

It's generally true that seeking more information can lead to increased knowledge, yes.

But I've also met a lot of people in my career who can confidently recite factoids from hundreds of podcasts, books, and blog posts they've read but then struggle when they have to tackle real-world problems. Podcasts don't substitute for experience and someone with real-world experience is going to run circles around someone who merely listened to a lot of podcasts or read a lot of books.

Podcasts have also become a trap for inexperienced engineers in recent years. It's easy to listen to a lot of podcasts with guests who are trying to flex their knowledge or look extra smart by claiming their subject is the only way to do something. Then you end up with juniors trying to make complex microservice architectures with over-engineered single page app frontends for trivial tasks because that's what they've been learning about from podcasts. Podcasts try to capture the most exciting topics, whereas many engineering problems are better solved by boring old technology. Without experience to know the difference, podcasts can really lead people astray.

> A streamer that I occasionally tune into (Asmongold) says that if you are seeking information outside of the game such as watching streams of the game, that makes you a top 10% player automatically.

Influencers telling their followers that following them will provide a leg up on the competition is the oldest marketing trick in the book. :) I'm sure some amount of stream watching can provide some learning, but for fast-twitch games I'll put my money on the player who has more hours of practice over the player who watches a lot of streams of other people playing.