"practice accounted for just a 12% difference in performance in various domains" is not contrary to "10,000 hours of deliberate practice are needed to become world-class in any field".
For example, A) 10,000 hours of deliberate practice are needed to become a professional chess player, B) practice accounted for just a 12% difference in performance in professional chess. A and B can both be true at the same time.
The top players might have spent several hours on a related field, like what futsal is for football.
Neither is true. Everything is heritable, as the behavioral geneticists like to say, and increasingly the genetics are being defined and nailed down; and the latter is completely refuted by the OP study and the previous Hambrick study - time spent on a field has only a weak relation with results.
> The top players might have spent several hours on a related field, like what futsal is for football.
Chess players study chess. There is no related field from which meaningful transfer will happen - at the top levels of chess, the problems are only about chess.
I ask because inherited talent is a myth.
Long distance running.