26 Apr 13
and a chess player.
I was interested to hear Fischer describe Staunton as a chess theoretician rather than a chess player. What is the difference? Surely every chess player is a theoretician to some extent and every theoretician a chess player? I wonder if a theoretician likes to study more rather than play chess? Is this the difference?
26 Apr 13
1 edit
Originally posted by tvochessIt depends what type of scientist and what type of engineer. Clearly the demarcation between lets say a theoretical physicist and a civil engineer are quite distinct, for although both use mathematics the civil engineers may be put towards an application, say building an expansion bridge, whereas the theoretical physicist simply develops theories. But chess is not engineering nor science.
What is the difference between a scientist and an engineer?
Interesting was that Morphy was the most booked up player of his day and Fischer probably of his day, surely this makes them to an extent, theoreticians? But they were also chess players, whereas Staunton although he played chess, is described more as a theoretician, so i guess he theorised a lot and played a little chess as opposed to playing a lot of chess with a little theory. Is it not the case?
- Joined
- 08 Apr 09
- Moves
- 20001
30 Apr 13
I wanted to distinguish mainly between theory and practice.
A chess theoretician desires to find and understand best moves, primarily in the opening or end phase. The focus is on 'perfect play'.
A chess player wants to win the game. This does not necessary require perfect play. Sometimes, suboptimal moves can even be much harder for an opponent to tackle. The focus is on 'practical play'.