Chess knowledge vs playing strength

I have been thinking recently about the correlation between knowledge in chess and actual playing strength. I think that there is a lot more (or less) than just chess knowledge to play strong chess. I think that it is not uncommon for average club players around 1600 to have quite a lot of knowledge of the game yet their playing strength does not seem to be taking advantage of this knowledge. Also, very strong grandmasters of hundreds of years ago may have had less "knowledge" than a master today, yet they were still able to play very strong chess. So considering that the grandmasters of the past proved that chess theory is actually not that important to play strong chess, then what attributes actually make up playing strength? Is it certain personality traits? Is it about always demanding the best from everything? About being calm, ruthless, careful, cunning or calculating? Is playing strong chess more about having good intuition and possessing particular character traits rather than actual knowledge?

Your question may go along with the question of whether you're born with chess skill or you learn it through studying. I personally feel I have little "intuitive" chess skill and that the vast majority of the good moves I make come from lots of studying of books and games.

You mention that possibly personality traits influence one's chess playing ability. That is a neat idea! Hopefully someone will do studies on this concept. At my college, we are required to take a "strengths finder" test and remember our top five strengths (there are 50+ strength options). My top five are, in order:

1. Ideation (having ideas, not necessarily good ones )

2. Analytical 

3. Woo (stands for Winning Others Over)

4. Communication

5. Competition

It's clear where ideation, analytical and competition fit in in the chess world. Not too sure about the other two. 

This is a good thread. I hope to read some interesting responses!

Well I think the bulk of chess skill does come from the combination of knowledge, and the understanding of how to apply that knowledge. But it certainly isn't the only thing that makes a good player.

1.  The burning hatred of losing.

2.  Pattern recognition.

3.  The ability to avoid a concentration lapse.

4.  The ability to handle pressure.

5.  The ability to calculate and understand how the pieces
     are related to each other depending where they are positioned.

I think theoretical knowledge is important to the extent of 80%, & the other 20% I give for individual personality traits. Simplay because reading a book of chess can give you the conclusion effort of  hundered years of practice for multiple chess analytics!. Unique personality trait in chess (such as Kasparov) is  rare in common practice that is why i cannot depend on personality trait for learning how to play excellent chess. Most chessplayers do not like to read chess books that is why they complain about weakness, but if someone will read chess books very deeply i think he can play at a near level to GMs no matter what is his personality trait. 

When I first started playing I moved nowhere in ratings, I studied a little- moved a little. Read a few books about understanding chess and positions. My rating actually went down for a bit then shot up like a bat outta hell. At that time I think my knowledge was more than my experience knew what to do with. Kind of like information overload.

Now I find myself playing in complicated positions sometimes according to what I was taught, sometimes the exact opposite- both situations I play the correct move for the position. Sometimes I can't explain why it's the best move, it just feels right. This intuition is the x factor that brings your playing strength up to your knowledge level. I think a big part of the x factor is experience, but part of it is confidence in your own abilities. Not being afraid to make mistakes and roll with them when you do. Because you will.