"SBD" <DrDowd@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:9af5aced-2d12-4573-a03c-9bfdabd38ed2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mar 25, 12:41 pm, "Chess One" <OneCh...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "SBD" <DrD...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
>
news:d9489adc-872d-479c-bdbc-ab7efd1f88f4@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On 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.
I suppose it is in the definition, but I would not accept a 1500
player as a theorist, not would I agree that they "know more" of some
lines - unless you mean rote memorization.
**That is what I mean. To know the moves!
But if you beat them in 10
moves, well, how many "lines" last that few moves?
**Which is to say they do not understand the moves they 'know'
if lost at move 10,
they would have had to commit a serious error by that time.....
**Quite!
A theorist would have to be someone who knows a lot about theory, or
generates new theory - just my definition, but I think it is
reasonably accurate.I've not known anyone below Expert/master level in
playing ability who could also be considered a "theorist."
**I have. In fact, when advice is shovelled out to newbies in this very
newsgroup, the heaviest shovel is my people who are 1600-1800. They stand
by
their [vicarious] understanding and love to quote stuff like 'My System'.
This is their theory, Nimzovitch's, or maybe its something cooler and more
contem****ary, but I don't see many [any] masters here telling others what
theory they should follow.
> 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?
"Ability to perform a task does not signify an understanding of that
task." - SBD, around 1995 or so..... the inverse strikes me as true as
well.
**We are falling into agreement, perhaps.
But also time controls, physical fitness, nerves....
**Gawd! Whatever the exucse! You can do it OTB or you can talk about what
you could do, if only... :))
I thought you were talking more about such people as Zuckerman, Rolf
Schwarz, Gruenfeld, Korn, Cheron, whose chess playing ability did not
match their theoretical knowledge and contributions (although Zuck
gets unjustly slammed as too much of a book monkey - I've seen his
games, and the won games still had to be won).
**No. I am making a general comment about the nature of a certain form of
study [rote-learning] and its worth in on-demand practice. It is not any
strange idea in chess, and I might as well be paraphrasing Kasparov.
**I learned it as a young player Steven - if you take the gloves off and
immediately fight, giving up pawns or using weird openings, or unusual
combinations [not insane ones!] to disrupt any book and theoretical
knowledge, much more than half of your opponents [even at higher rating]
will hunker down and 'consolidate'.
That is when, brother, you take their throat.
Cordially, Phil Innes
|
