"SBD" <DrDowd@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:d9489adc-872d-479c-bdbc-ab7efd1f88f4@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mar 24, 9:16 am, "Chess One" <OneCh...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> I doubt it. There are many theorists of chess who can't actually play
the
> game when there is a real opponent opposite them.
I disagree. Any proof to back this up? And remember, "many," not just
an isolated case or two.
**By all means doubt, Steven. I suppose my proof is my direct experience.
But I am sure this is not a satisfactory answer to you, since you match my
generalism with your own general quare on it.
What I mean is that there are 1500 rated players who know more of some
lines
than I do, but who I defeat by move 10 - and I supposed out loud that just
knowing the lines is not the same as understanding the relative merits of
the positions.
You would perhaps also accept that theoretical knowledge in chess, or
anything else, is different from an ability to use that knowledge on
demand,
in a competitive situation?
There is a common joke about teaching creative writing; at tax time, entry
for Teaching Creative writing = $40,000. Entry for earning from one's
Creative Writing = $0.
Cordially, Phil Innes
|
