Playing chess requires skill. Playing chess poorly doesn't require a lot of skill.
When making statements about X, X is permitted to be a clause which includes both a noun and qualifiers. X does not have to be a single word. If I assert that there is at least one X such that X requires no skill, X can be "breathing sufficient to survive" or "chess played poorly" or some other phrase which contains a qualifier, and still legitimately demonstrate the truth of the assertion.
X can be "breathing sufficient to survive"
People do die as the result of poor breathing so "sufficient" isn't that clear either.
"chess played poorly"
That's no description of an ability. We don't take about whether Alice or Bob are better at "chess played poorly". When we talk about abilities we generally do take about things that aren't binary.
(Continuing the posting of select posts from Slate Star Codex for comment here, as discussed in this thread, and as Scott gave me - and anyone else - permission to do with some exceptions.)
Scott Alexander recently posted about growth mindset, with a clarificatory followup post here. He discussed some possible weaknesses of its advocates - as well as their strength. Here's a quote outlining the positions discussed: