In my view I think all players which have 2000+ know about theoretical concetps and/or terms/expressions. For example, a 2100+ can dont know play very well carlsbad structure, but if you talk about 'carlsbad structure' he/she know about what you are talking.
Howrever, I made a mention about hedgehog and maroczy bind structure and a 2100+ player said he had never heard of it. That's okay, it are a not so well-known names, but he kept saying that such structures would be unlikely to exist because of the complexity of chess, etc..
I then imagine that he also does not know about other structures better known as isolani or carlsbad structures.
My question is: is it possible to reach 2100+ with no theoretical knowloged? Look, I'm not talking about 'be an expert in theory', but about do not know terms and expressions, as if one were alienated without any chess culture.
Being always suspicious, my first impression is to consider him to be a troll! But I have to be more flexible and therefore I am asking what other people think about it!
Amateurs have collected some thousands of chunks, experts tens of thousands, GMs say 50.000 and Carlsen 100.000 chunks.
Call it experience, motifs, chunks, whatever.
Don't believe in fairy-tales, ok?
@Sarg0n Are you answering 'No' to my topic question?
The is a person who reached master status, and he fell for the Scholar's Mate, in a classical game. It's possible for a skilled player to have holes in his knowledge. It's even possible for him not know the terms if they weren't taught to him. (You can add without knowing that it's addition...) However, lack of knowledge of many terms is an indication that he isn't a strong player.
Assuming the language barrier isn't present. Once I learned the Russian Game, but it wasn't until later that I learned that it was also called the Petroff(v)'s Defense.
I should to say he is a lichess regular player (which indicate internet access) and he was in lichess forum (which indicate some 'social-chess behaviours').
I guess if someone reach 2100+ knowing such limited jargon this indicates a very powerful talent! Maybe impossible! But that is my opinion...
(Not that I'm refusing your argument, I'm just giving more details saying that he has access to the internet, talks in English with other people and plays regularly in the lichess)
But we can play around with it a little. Would it be possible to reach 2100+ without this culture in chess? Not knowing these names implies, basically, not having studied chess!
anyway, such discussions are always too subjective: there is no way to prove either this or that...
Looks like you are talking about nomenclatures. It doesn't matter whether a guy know lucena or philidor positions but if he know how to play those rook endgame positions well then he is a strong player.
just an anecdote here, but ive heard that in 'street chess' circles, like the parks in NY, there are a lot of really strong players who dont really know any of the formal names of any openings. that said, they still 'know' them, they just arent familiar with the names assigned to them by books and pros.
as in, you could ask them about 'carlsbad structure', theyd have no clue what you are talking about, but the pieces on the board, and they may well be able to demonstrate the motifs. its similar to how some musicians use the language of music theory and use phrases like chord progression, chorus, melody, arpeggio, and other musicians just 'play by ear'. neither one is any indication of skill level.
You can look at Leela for example. She was trained from zero (hence "Zero") and she plays the openings such that they make theoretical sense. In the same way a 2100 would know how to open a game even if they had never studied any opening theory, purely from experience.
stockfish doesnt know the names of these structures but still shows u how to play against them.
also in bullet and blitz u probably can get away easier with some weak positional play if u are really good at tactics.
