"Kenneth Sloan" wrote

"Knowing the rules" is by no means the bottom rung on the ladder.

We needn't have a philosophic debate about what it means to "know the
rules." I drew a game I should have won several years ago (against a young
man who is probably of IM strength today) because I did had forgotten the
rule for time forfeits that requires the winner keep a complete scoresheet.
Your original statement, I believe, mentioned a player who knows how the
pieces moved, not someone who knows as much about chess legal trivia as an
international arbiter.

So now that I know you are a director, and have seen 100s and 1000s of
sub-1000 players, do you have any data on, say, 900-rated adults vs.
900-rated kids? I'd bet there's no difference (except maybe the kids are
improving quickly and the adults are stuck).


And...oh yes...I think we all know chess players who "know a lot about
chess - especially the history and culture". They can perhaps even
quote famous games and pontificate on the relative merits of past
Champions. But, they can't actually *play* worth a damn. My point is
that "knowing much more than the rules" doesn't *necessarily* give you an
edge over the board against someone who *only* knows the rules.

Sadly, this is what I am becoming except I'm forgetting the history,
culture, and classic games as well.