It would be more interesting to talk about ELO 2100, meaning OTB rating. To get there I think even without wanting to know you will eventually know at least name of the openings. It would be interesting to hear from someone who got to level elo 2100+ OTB (is there anyone?) without any opening prep, just playing his favorite let's say 1. Nf3 and then we'll see :)
In classical chess if you are tactically well prepared you might get away without in depth opening knowledge, because you have lot's of time to figure out things. In blitz and rapid there are just so many tricks, especially plenty known by GMs, that it will be hard to find in real time the solutions if you never studied the positions. On one of GM Akobian's video, there was shown something like that, don't remember maybe in French defence. He told that in classical game best move would be this, but if you play blitz you can go there and then he shows like 7 or 10 moves sequence causing real time consuming problems for the opponent to figure out :) So opponent would either mess up whole thing or lose on time.
Dunno about 2100 but most by OTB opponent have been around 1600-1800 and they all try use opening that get out of theory. So everyone is afraid other dude being prepared none of them self are (i.e they are afraid of the ghost)
On a typical game people drop out theory by move 5-10
If it is bullet then you just need to be fast with the mouse and have fast reflexes. With some basic knowledge of chess, you can easily be 2200.
There are some players 1400-1500 in blitz and rapid but 2100-2200 in bullet
It would be difficult to cross a Fide rating of say,1700 in classical chess without knowing any theory at all. If you know the basics of the theory you can go a long way.
I know international masters of 2400+ FIDE, who do not know any opening theory at all.
They play just the same sidelines over again, survive on experience, and destroy opponents in rook endgames.
@feynarun2 kinda depends what you mean by knowing theory. Load of people of that strength never studied a chess book and could not tell names of theoretical endings etc. But they can play quite few of them. Chess is practical skill which can learned just by playing.
I sing and play guitar and know around 100 songs but I would not be able to tell you the notes I am hitting when I sing or even the notes and chords on the guitar I just do it because I have been playing for over 40 years and I stopped learning music theory after my 3rd year in.
So if you wanted me to write down all the notes of a song I could do that but I would need to have my guitar and then play the song out and write it out a little at a time. My memory of the songs are in my head connected to my hands and vocal cords I don't remember the music then transfer it to my playing.
Also when I am playing my mind can be somewhere else because I am basically like a tape recorder and am just doing play back from my memory so I can play the same song the same way 100 times and I actually could be doing something else while I am doing it which I do sometimes when I am practicing. In fact if I actually started to think about what I was doing it would screw me up because I would lose the play back mode that I am in.
I think expert chess players are a lot like this they make a connection in their head that has nothing to do with the theory of chess they just do it. The chess players that are on the genius level can play bullet chess at a high level and make great moves without even having to think about it. Magnus Carlson has said that he basically knows the best moves in less then a second which is why he is so strong at blitz and bullet chess.
Bill Gates and Steven Jobs were college drop outs but both of them created multi billion dollar computer companies. Super talented people did not get that way through study their like a bird building a birds nest they just know how to do it. That is why I have always said great chess players are born not made you can't become a great chess player by study if you don't have it in you you will never become a great player.
I have been playing chess for 50 years and on a regular basis the last 15 and so far I have yet to even reach the 1600 level yet some talented 12 year old can reach that level in a year. If it were all about learning and theory I would be a much better chess player maybe at the 2000 level but because I lack the talent the only way I would ever play at that level would be if I cheated with a computer.
" That is why I have always said great chess players are born not made you can't become a great chess player by study if you don't have it in you you will never become a great player."
That is not true.
The parents of the polgar sisters (I'm sure you know Judith Polgar and Susan Polgar) taught their daughters to defend an academic thesis. He was convinced that he could, as long as he started early, create a talented person in something. After some options he decided that it would be Chess. As we can see, his thesis was more than proven.
If you're talking about super top GMs like Magnus Carlsen, maybe some psycho-biological help is needed. But all the skills needed to become a strong chess player (GM level) CAN be developed through regular training. Calculation, technique of endings, tactics, countless tabiah (search term), openings, etc. can be taught, trained and mastered.
Magnus Carlsen had a VERY incisive help from his first coach. Kasparov was surrounded by former world champions. Alekhine was helped by strong players.
Mozart, for example, was helped by his father who was a composer known in his day and his first composition was actually pieces of music that he had contact with.
The problem is that when one does not have confidence in oneself one does not possess the mental / physical energy necessary to train hard. Overall we underestimate the effort required to succeed at something in the order of 25% to 50%. As much as we think we're working hard, we're lying to ourselves. Players who are better than us have trained / studied / practiced MUCH more than we think and the media, stories, biographies tend to make these people into legends as be special BEFORE your success.
For example, Magnus Carlsen liked to memorize capitals, I believe that Kasparov also had a similar hobby and many other geniuses are known for similar memorizing activities. But these activities can be stimulated in any healthy child due to the prasticity of their minds. They can be conditioned through compliments to continue their efforts, giving them extra memorization skills and pattern recognition and thus more learning speed.
For example, Magnus Carlsen surprised his coach by receiving an opening to study (cof cof, memorize) the night and the other day already have memorized everything.
Sorry, but the evidence shows that hard work comes BEFORE talent. What comes before are activities that seemingly have no relation, such as memorizing country capitals at age 4. Of course, by brainwashing a child's brain it will be easier to absorb knowledge later. It's like physically training a child to get the muscles and even the bones needed for some physical activity. The point is that mental activities are easier because of the great plasticity of the human brain that is premature as it is born and can be shaped by the direct influence of the environment.
@will_is_myth is correct (although he excluded Sophia), that genius can be taught. However, it's hard to teach chess without naming the functions involved. As I said, we could teach people to simple addition and 11th dimension math without teaching them a single term, but it's much simpler with the terms.
