How about players of old like Murphy who is said to have been of 2600 - 2700 strength and yet played opening moves considered subpar today. Didn’t stop him from finding a 10 move mate with variations on the middle of the board in a blindfold simul.
Too often in my line of work, not chess but similar in many ways, people confuse knowledge with ability. They are not the same thing. One can have very little knowledge and yet lots of technical ability to kick the living daylights out of a very knowledgeable but less skilled opponent. This happens all the time in chess, fighting, classical music competitions etc.
I've just googled these 3 terms. Yes, it's possible to reach 2100 in lichess and don't know these terms. Of course I've met these structures in games, but never knew they have names..
You don't need to know antyhing to play chess reasonably well.
@ Kusokosla
yeah but Murphy was 2600-2700 playing against people who didn't modern opening theory either. He wouldn't be 2600-2700 by playing moves considered subpar today, that's for sure.
#1 for lichess or otb
#15 lichess, which make more sense know some nomenclature.
#13 Of course, for example: AlphaZero . But for that it is necessary a huge natural talent. Nor carlsen or alekhine or capablanca or... have learned alone! All strong players had some mentor / coach / teacher.
Maybe I'm too dumb but there are things we've learned that took decades for the world's strongest players to discover and I can not imagine myself learning these features alone ...
Some strategies were discovered after heavy investigation by the greatest players in history, I can not imagine how anyone would come to these same conclusions alone!
I know that chess works below the verbal level (this is scientific), but when someone teaches you (which, of course, is just an orientation) he needs to use verbs to guide you, to 'force you' to look in the right direction so that your brain has the chance to form the patterns by itself. And what I'm trying to say is that the patterns created by the brain of someone with 2100+ needed some guidance and to guide someone you should use a conventional nomenclature...
Well then yes because they could have gotten lucky with flagging or just his opponents blundering and suddenly he’s an incredibly overrated 2100 player
It's possible at any rating to not be well versed in some theory. Even 2700+ could say not know the theory so well behind kings gambit. As they almost NEVER see it at that level. So if you played King's gambit vs a 2700 with a prepared line they may make a mistake on like move 12 or 15 overlooking something well prepared whereas in other lines they are solid up to move 20+.
+2000 on what pool. 2000 in lichess classic you need to just nothing. while different story for Blitz. Anyway specific knowledge is no hugely important. In one his books Dan Heisman commented on one his games that end in basic pawn down rook endgame and he did not know it. And at the time he was 2100. And knowing concepts and knowing names for them is also two different things
@will_is_myth 2100 Rapid - bullet - blitz - classics?be more specific
