English Chess Forum

Branko 'Paul' Pribanich, the Northampton player that some us knew before he sadly passed away recently was once something before a match began in 1992 that I've always wondered about. I think I agree with him but have never been quite sure. Just wondered what other's thought. He said 'It's better to be the master of one thing than good at many things.' It's a generic point and I always used to think it depends on what that one thing you are the master of is but I've never been sure.

Any thoughts?

Both entirely legitimate ways to live your life I think

Trying to really deeply master just one thing is perhaps slightly harder to maintain these days - there are now so many people in the world that, absent outlandish talent, anything you try and master will still have people much better than you at it.

Also for a lot of fields there's a good chance that computers can - or will in a few years/decades - crush the best humanity can offer.

Hmm, but someone like an oddjobsman would probably never be out of work, although never well off whereas a typeset printer, though well-trained but only good at that one thing would be as nearly all are now.

Yes maybe you are right it s a false anti-thesis

Well, if we're going that way, generalists win by a landslide in terms of long term evolutionary success

I'm sure its meant to be more about places where you've got a real choice though. Leisure time say. Would you rather say go 100% of time to one game, 50-50 to two of them, or really spread it about?

What I'm fairly sure most people do is put enough effort in to hit the point where more improvement gets exponentially harder, settle somewhere round that, then do other things as well.

I remember Dave Rumens once telling me that Pribanich had beaten him in dashing style...