Competitive programming is often seen as a skill anyone can master with enough practice. While this is true to an extent, there is a limit to how far pure effort alone can take someone. This is similar to athletics, no matter how much training an average person undergoes after 18, they will never be able to run 100 meters in under 10 seconds like elite sprinters.
Natural Ability Matters
Just as not everyone is born with the genetic potential to be an Olympic level sprinter, not everyone has the natural aptitude to become a red coder in CF. Some people grasp algorithms, data structures, and problem-solving patterns much faster than others. It’s true a talented 10 yo primary school student in China might learn faster and more effectively than a typical college CS student. They can see solutions intuitively, make quick connections, and debug with remarkable efficiency. This is akin to how elite athletes have superior muscle composition, reflexes, and biomechanics.
Acceptance
In sports, most people don’t expect to become world-class sprinters, yet they still enjoy running, competing in local races, or simply staying fit. Similarly, in CF, the goal doesn’t have to be reaching the red rank. Many people use CP to sharpen their coding skills, train their problem solving ability, or maybe just have fun. Becoming a specialist in certain topics or reaching an CM level, even without being a grandmaster, is still a worthwhile achievement than nothing.
Conclusion
The idea that "anyone can become a red coder if they work hard enough" is as misleading as saying "anyone can run 100m under 10 seconds with enough practice." Natural talent plays a significant role, and the top ranks are often dominated by those with an innate aptitude for problem solving without exception. However, this doesn't mean CP isn’t worth doing just like sports tennis or football, it can still be rewarding and enjoyable at any level.
perhaps you mean this: "With age, the ability to learn new things (mobile intelligence) decreases. This is due to the fact that with age, the formation of new connections between neurons becomes more difficult (for example, due to a lack of neurotransmitters necessary for this)." But the fact that it's harder for you to learn new things only slows down your growth, but it doesn't put limits on your abilities. It may take a lot of effort, but you can get a rating with enough diligence. Moreover, such a point is reached already at the age of over 30-40, and until that time you are full of energy to learn and develop.
Most important factor in my opinion is how interested you are. Most people i see who are good at cp genuinely just enjoy it. I guess maybe how interested u r might be genetics.
Very few people in this world are born with gifted intelligence. Then why can there such a vast difference between two people in the ability to think critically (/solve codeforces problems)? It's because of life experiences leading up to this point.
Intelligence = Experience + Genetics. Someone who has spent some part of their childhood/teenage playing chess, or doing maths, or solving puzzles like sudokus, or maybe preparing for a competitive exam/olympiad that has logical subjects like maths/physics is certainly going to be better at solving logical problems (or picking up the ability to solve logical problems) than someone who has not had these experiences.
In fact, research says that people who have a lot of hobbies/know a lot of skills (like art, sports, etc.) are more intelligent than those who do not.
So, it all boils down to your experiences until your current age + some amount of genetics.
Facts, it's actually a great post