Specialist or Generalist?

[Smmenen]

One of the issues that has come up in the other thread I started recently is that Vintage players are too parochial.  That is, they play one deck and aren't sufficiently knowledgeable about other decks beyond what is necessary to know about the decks they oppose when they face them.  There are good reasons for this.  It is very difficult for people to switch decks in Vintage.  Not only is there a high barrier to expertise, but it is expensive to become highly conversant in multiple archetypes.  I remember when I started playing GAT and Combo, Oscar Tan commented that I could play most archetypes.  Most people in that era who were “nameâ€? players were Mana Drain players.  They didn’t play other decks.

Today we see this: some people are known for Stax (Vroman, Cron) and others for Combo (JD) and others for a certain deck (Shay Control Slaver).  However, there are a few players who are well known for being able to pilot lots of decks: myself, Thug (Koen), Diceman (he is known to be good at Dragon, Gifts, and MUD), and Toad (good at Gifts, Stax, etc). 
   
My question is: is it better in Vintage to be a generalist or a specialist? 

a) what are the upsides of learning to pilot all of the major archetypes?

b) what are the upsides of learning to play just a single deck?

c) what are the drawbacks? 

I have some things in mind, but I don’t want to spoil or taint the response. 

[MoxMonkey]

a) what are the upsides of learning to pilot all of the major archetypes?
I can pilot to a well performance 2 Land Belcher, Control Slaver, Tog, Keeper, SSB, U/w Fish, TPS, and I just started 5 Color Stax which I'm not to comforable with but I'm getting there.  I like being able to play a lot of archtypes because I know what the other decks can do.  I know what they can throw at me and what could go wrong cause I have been on both sides of the board.  Knowing what it feels like from both ends is really nice and can give you an edge in matchups.
 
b) what are the upsides of learning to play just a single deck?
Learning to play 1 deck lets you Master it to a point that you stop making stupid play mistakes and know whats a threat to your board and to your deck.

c) what are the drawbacks?
The drawbacks are that you have only your experience from your side of the board and have no idea what the other deck can pull out of its ass.  I think both have their advantages and disadvantages but I like being able to play many decks so when I get sick of one I pull out another.

[absolute]

My question is: is it better in Vintage to be a generalist or a specialist?

Both.

a) what are the upsides of learning to pilot all of the major archetypes?

The major advantage to learning to pilot every major archetype allows a player to understand the simple or more focused plays a player is bound to make. Learning what others are thinking or knowing the most optimal play their deck can make allows a control player to counter the right spell, and it allows the workshop player the ability to bait. Knowing all archetypes is also beneficial in knowing what your specific role in each matchup should be, and how to excecute proper mulligans, the extension of a hand, and conservation of damage. While all these abilities may be understood after playing the game for a long period of time, new archetypes are presented in a montly fashion these days. Being able to quickly adapt is key in staying ahead of your opponents, and using this to your advantage in how to 'metagame' your deck and sideboard.

b) what are the upsides of learning to play just a single deck?

While playing and being able to use every archetype is all fine and good, it isn't essential to play every deck. If the deck in question has been something you are comfortable with, and that you know has a good game against most archetypes that seem to pop up, by all means play it. Staying a step ahead of the rest of the metagame is the essential part, so a good deck can be viable for fairly long periods of time.

c) what are the drawbacks?

The major drawback to learning every new deck is becomming convoluted with strategy and sometimes inducing confusion over what will happen in the average game. Sometimes you just lose, but being on tilt causes players to assume far too many situations that any can be plausible. Also, the major drawback to having a known deck is people are bound to find very distinct answers to your threats, and if enough of this happens, it can push a deck out of contention (or at the very least, make it difficult as hell to succeed). The prior is also highly probable in a small tournament environment where everybody knows each other.

[cssamerican]

My question is: is it better in Vintage to be a generalist or a specialist?

It depends on the person.

a) what are the upsides of learning to pilot all of the major archetypes?

You can play the decks that have the best match-ups for the metagame at that moment. You learn the weakness of all the decks you face in much greater depth than you would if you just played against them. I guess you can say you learn what gears makes the deck run, not just what monkey wrench will screw them up. This probably gives you some insight on what to do in some unusual situation when they occur.

b) what are the upsides of learning to play just a single deck?

The elimination of play mistakes. I think people overlook this a lot. When I play a bunch of decks I make a lot of play mistakes. Most of them are really subtle and I am sure many of them go unnoticed, even by me. But it doesn't change the fact that I will probably lose 10% of my games due to some subtle mistakes that I don't even notice that I am making until I later began to play that deck exclusively for several months. And I am willing to bet I would find even more mistakes that I am making if I piloted that deck for a year or more. The other benefit from playing one deck is that you start to gain a feel for what the deck will give you. What I mean by this is you could be faced with two options and on the surface both options are equally good. The experience that you have gained by playing one deck exclusively for a long time is you have a greater historical database to fall back on to decipher which good decision is really the best one.

I kind of feel that if you are a very thorough player you can play a lot of decks at a high level and get away with it. What I mean is the advantages you gain from being more adaptable to the metagame could outweigh the few play mistakes you do make. This is why people like yourself do well no matter what deck you play as long as you choose a deck that is a good deck for the metagame. However, I would almost bet that this type of player would do just as good if they stuck with one deck for a long period of time. This is the category I would put Rich Shay and Robert Vroman in. I am sure they could play various archetypes and do well; however, they have stuck with one and done well without having to be so presice on guesing what they will have to face that day. Then most players like myself who's play is riddled with minor mistakes and who's ability to properly predict the metagame is less than stellar would definitely do better in a tournament setting if they played one deck exclusively for an extended period of time. This exclusivity would decrease the amount of play mistakes to the point where their level of play is equal to that of better players who are bouncing around from deck to deck.

[LouGodKingofDustBunnys]

A)
Playing and testing with every major (or potentially major)archtype allows you to learn the various In's/outs of  each deck, and often times that can be extremely important in learning how to beat said archtypes if you play against them. IE a deck with multipule outs or various routes to victory. Often times some outs aren't obvious to people just picking up the decks or just glancing at the decklists...and there is no substitute for experience in magic (and real life for that matter).

B) Just learning to play one deck doesn't exclude testing other decks per say, but imply's focusing a majority of play/testing time to one deck above all others. If one tests or plays a single archtype above others it of 'seems' to imply either 1) Said deck was designed or innovated by the tester, and it has a cozy little place in his/her heart. 2) Comfort level with the deck... some people pick up and play various decks, and then find one that just feels right in there hands, that when they play it, it fits there particular mentality ( IE, sadists perfer Stax). There is something to be said about playing a deck that just 'feels right'... often times it allows the player to focus on their game, and all other things being equal, a person of this type has an advantage against an opponent (in say the mirror) who does not share the compulsion to obsess over one deck.

C) The drawbacks...the Number one drawback of "A" players is time...the time to test and learn all the major, and potentially major archtypes. Just glancing over decklists isn't enough. A player has to be willing to sacrifice time and effort to learning decks that they might or might not feel comfortable with, and that can skew results if the player isn't careful (testing stax for instance, getting a few bad draws, giving up on it, screaming how it is the suck... when you could have persited and learned that if you had just mulliganed, and/or played it differently you might have done much better with it). The biggest drawback to "B" is the lack of familiarity with other archtypes, sometimes leading to losses to plays you might not have seen, or are prepared for do to your lack of knowledge with said deck.

To the question: is it better in Vintage to be a generalist or a specialist?
It depends on one thing that was not brought up in your post...The Team Factor. If your a member of a team, and that team includes members of both group A and group B, the advantages and disadvantages of either can be offset by your team's testing. If your team is all of either group, it can, and (IMO) will skew your results.
My answer is that there is advantages to either group, but it's the team factor that is really the deciding factor. Without a proper team, I think it's best to be a member of group B, and mainly because of the time factor. It's easier to obsess over one deck then to spend a large chunk of time learning every major deck and all their ins and outs without having teammates that keep your testing results from being skewed


I would like to say even more on this subject, but my wife is dragging me to the movies to see the new Harry freaking Potter movie

[Ocat]

I dont claim to be near any of you peoples level of knowledge about MTG, I do would like to give my opinion.

a) what are the upsides of learning to pilot all of the major archetypes?

This one seems quite clear to me. By learning to play all the major archetypes you expand your knowledge in a way that makes it far more realistic that you can make assumptions about your opponents future plays, that actually hold some truth. I am, ofcourse, not talking about specific plays [Will he duress for my FoW, or play Negator]. I am talking about the outline of your opponents plan. With your knowledge of the deck and of the current in-game situation, it gives you a bonus, for lack of a better word.

b) what are the upsides of learning to play just a single deck?

For me, there is one major upside, and htat is that I always get to play with my favorite deck, Oath Salvagers. Besides that, you learn just a bit more about it than you otherwise would have.

c) what are the drawbacks?

About learning to play a single deck: you dont become a pro because of your continuing dedication to this deck. If you are not a real pro with more than one deck, then how could you become one by just playing this particular deck? If you dont have more than average knowledge and feeling about most of the formats archetypes you will lack skill in certain situations.
About learning to play all the major archetypes, In this case it seems too difficult to me, to keep up with the ever changing game we play. How can you keep playing 6-7 decks, updating them with new cards, innovate, play test, discuss, etc.
Most people dont have time for this. Besides, it isnt really fun, is it?

My question is: is it better in Vintage to be a generalist or a specialist? 

Frankly, I dont know. When it comes to winning, I'd like to be a generalist.
When it comes to having the most enjoyment I would be a specialist. Because I get more fun that way and thats what I am playing hte gmae for.

[Jank Golem]

I would say that it is better to be a generalist. By being a generalist you have a better idea of how to play against the other decks in the format. You also have the ability to play whatever deck is best in the current metagame.

For budget players (like myself) it is almost impossible to be a generalist because of the lack of access to the high end cards necessary to play the deck that is the best metagame choice. So a budget player must be a specialist and must choose one deck that is not easily hated out, so they can still play comptively on a budget.

[Vegeta2711]

a) what are the upsides of learning to pilot all of the major archetypes?

You become a better player in general. Not only do you have the ability to switch decks are far less of a loss in gear up time (I.E. Playing your deck at a sufficent skill level), but you also have a better understanding of the matches when you play them.

b) what are the upsides of learning to play just a single deck?

Um, you throughly excel at playing that one deck. Your less likely to make mistakes than other people and far more attuned to tweaking the deck in the correct way since you'll understand it so well.

c) what are the drawbacks? 

This is so obvious I'm suprised it's a question. Too much focus means you become limited in your options and if you spread yourself too thin your more likely to overlook the solution to your problems (In deck choice or while playing).

Assuming the generalist doesn't go overboard, he'll usually have a bigger advantage tourney wise. But as you've pointed out, it's not like the other choice is bad. 

[pyr0ma5ta]

As far as I understand it, being a former Limited only player moving on to Vintage, I see a lot of parallels between Limited and Vintage.  Your deck will have many 1-ofs, and these will tend to be strong cards.  In the case of Limited, they tend power uncommons or rares (Putrefy, Selesnya Guildmage, Followed Footsteps, Glare of Subdual for those of you who actually draft Ravnica), and in the case of Vintage they're obviously Restricted cards. 

Playing the deck in Limited decently is easy, you just make 2-power dudes and turn them sideways, but playing Vintage is a lot harder.  But playing a Limited deck WELL is like playing a Vintage deck well, you need to know percentages, what cards in your deck are good and when you want to find what magic bullet and cast it. 

Every time you draft you're playing a different deck, and I think that this is a lot like playing a different Vintage deck every time.  If you draft the same archetype every time, you're drafting 1 deck and learning to play it extremely well, but sometimes it's incorrect to draft that deck (if the guy on your right is in your colors).  Similarly, it's possible that your pet Vintage deck is inappropriate for a metagame and no matter how well you know how to play it, everyone is packing hate that you just can't win against.  It's better to diversify and be able to play at least 2 decks or archetypes well so that if you have to, you can switch at the last moment and not be totally unprepared.

Just my two cents, from a new TMD member.  Feel free to flame.

[bebe]

Now I tend to think that the specialist usually comes out on top at a major tournament. I look at a spoecialist from a slightly different perspective than has been described here though.

 Dicemanx is not strictly a generalist. He can play ant deck well because he is an exceptional magic player ( I've played against him enough to know this). He and Shockwave both have this attribute. But they do specialize. First, they create new archtypes. Do not overlook this. To create a given archtype and be successfull with it means you have spent the hours tweaking the deck, playing at various venues and testing it over and over again. Both these players are specialists with particular decks although they are more than capable of playing other decks.

I've also seen Lam go to wok on a deck. BirdSh*t evolved by being put through a similar process. I'm sure in the hands of a generalist who often net decks it can do well. It Lam's hands it will do better. Now Lam is more than capable of playing other decks. He has chosen to specialize in a particular deck for today's meta.

Look Toad can play a lot of decks. When he played his workshop builds he excelled because he was innovative with that archtype. Razor won with O. Stompy but his specialty is Cherry parfait and he seems one of the few that can consistently win with it. I have won numerous times with a Tier 2 deck ( blue mask ) because i'm intimate with it and know its strengths and weaknesses.

Everyone who knows me knows my main issue. There is to little innovation and too much net decking. By creating your own deck you get an intimate and specialized understanding of it. Those that are talented will win these decks. Now, I know that you can take a net deck and study and play it and be successfull as well. You could even specialize in the deck and win. Iits tiresome bringing out new ideas these days. Every time i have tried I'm looked at as the quirky old guy whose lost touch with the new meta. Its easier to generalize and just pick up an established archtype. The great players both create, specialize and generalize.
I do not think we have to pick a better option of the two. I think a good magic player does both.

[Revvik]

How about this for a drawback for specializing in one deck archetype?
I've been playing Tog in Vintage for far too long.  One could consider it simply a "Mana Drain deck", but in reality there are differences between it and other decks, especially if you go into the different builds such as Franklin's last posted Merchant Scroll-based build.

What happens when someone (like me) plays a deck like this to perfection, but it slowly becomes outclassed?  You're fucked if that's all you're good at.  I used to change things up almost every couple of weeks until I stuck with just the one archetype, and while my playskill definitely improved, now that I'm moving on I'm finding other things much more challenging than they should have been.

[Thug]

If you're a Generalist, you're better be a damn good one, but frankly thats often the truth. People keep playing decks not only because they are specialised in it, but because it performs for them.

Personally I like playing all different decks, if someone comes up with a new viable deck I like playing it in the early stage where it still can be improved. But if I think I got the last 2-3 cards right the deck does lose a lot of value for me to play it.
I might play it once more when it gets more popular, to see how to fight trough the hate, but most of the time that's it.

Off-course there are always exceptions, I will always like playing MUD, because it basically was the deck that introduced me to more competitive vintage. The fact that I owned 5 moxes before owning an Ancestral shows my roots

---

I don't think you can just choose to be either one of them, it's about a couple of factors:
- Skills (some people cant pick up a deck and perform, they need time)
- Card availability (you might able to pilot all decks, you still need the cards)
- You need to be open minded to become a Generalist.

---

One thing that keeps my from being a totall generalist is that I don't like playing without all vintage goodies.
I played FCG once, but had to play at least with all moxes to like the deck enough.

Koen

[CCClark]

No offense, but this one seems ovious to me.  Anyone who plays the same deck over and over is bound to be good at it after a while and actually learn what he should do against certain other decks.  He does lose the knowlege of what tricks those other decks can do in the hands of an experienced player, but he still has the advantage.   

In the hands of a good player even the crappiest decks can win against an inexperienced player.    I once made it 3 rounds in playing in a tribal tournament playing with a full Fallen Empires deck made up of Orcs.   It showed me that when people play super powered decks against a person who knows what they are doing, the outcome is rarely in doubt. 

The question comes down to whether or not both players are good at the decks they are playing.  Even a pro used to playing most anything will not know all the nuiances of playing every deck unless he has had experience with it before and will likely play with caution.  A person who has played the heck out of a certain deck has the advantage of knowing how to beat certain decks just becuase he knows the weaknesses of his own.

Knowing your own weaknesses is golden compared to just knowing all the decks generally.  It does eventually come down to the two players skill and how good the actual deck is in the end.   If two players of equal skill hit each other the better draw and deck will win.   Magic does have a remote luck element luckily.  I still have to side with the player playing the same deck a bunch though.

The only time this won't apply is when a person actually can remember every little nuiance of every deck he has played before.  This is a rare player and not seen much.  In this case he is a dominate force.  Having knowledge of all the decks is oviously the better route but I don't see many people getting to that point, at least in the tournaments I have played in.

[jpmeyer]

One of the problems of being a specialist that I haven't seen mentioned yet is that you often get into situations where you try too hard to make "your" deck work in whatever metagame you are dealing with at the time.

[dexter]

Why not be a Generalistic Specialist?

I mean when can you be classified as just a specialist? Is it just because you only have played one deck to success and that automatically means that someone who has played alot of different decks to a bigger extent should be worse with the deck than the so called specialist? I know many players that can handle basically every tier1 deck right now just as good as someone who is a so called specialist on the specific deck thanks to alot of playtesting with and against every deck. You have to remember that in order to be able to pilot a deck to the top spots of a tournament you have to know your own gameplan as well as the opponents gameplan in every specific match up, and that kinda experience comes from playing both sides or at least you have a better clue how the two different decks should act vs each other.

The few specialists Ive known that have played has just been able to pilot a certain deck to success but when they try and handle another deck they just fizzle but at the same time people who knows how to handle many different decks can take the specialists deck and play just as good with it as the specialist.

[balthamel]

Quite personally, I believe it's impossible to be a specialist on your deck without knowing how to identify and correctly react to other known deck types that you may meet. Which is to say, without a fair bit of generalist, you're not a true specialist.

[dandan]

Someone who is experienced with a sword, a dagger, a mace, a flail and a Bohemian Earspoon would lose to a sword specialist in a swordfight, given that both spend an approximately equal amount of time on training.

The sword specialist would also be at a severe disadvantage in a field of revolver specialists.

I think it is clear that if you want to dedicate a lot of time to the game you should be a generalist capable of spending some additional time to become a specialist in whatever you decide is optimal at that time. For people with less time, specialising in a type of deck that suits you and is competitive is probably a better option.

Note that the Pros appear to be generalists who are quite capable of being as good as specialists in a short period of time.

[Whatever Works]

Being a generalist is a huge benefit! I believe that learning how to play every deck in the format is one of the most helpful things a player can do. Being able to have a greater understanding of the role of both players in a matchup, and having a better sense of what your opponent is trying to do is amazing. Being able to learn the strengths and weaknesses of decks makes several matchups feel more comfortable.

Also playing several different decks puts you in several different situations. These different situations can help make people better all around players, and have a greater understanding of how to deal vs. weird situations.

Thus, if you can become a better player from playing more decks it will allow you to take your experiences and apply them more effectively to whatever deck you choose to play at a tournement.

The term "Specialist" I feel is severally overused. When you think of the top deck "specialists" such as Cron with Stax, Shay with CS, Smennen with Gifts, DicemanX with Dragon, etc. What do all these players have in common? They are very very good players!!! I could hand any of them a new deck for a tournement with the belief that they would have success.

I know specialists may have masters some small minor details with a curtain deck, but dont the best players notice these details anyway???

T2 Pro's constantly change decks and succeed. Sure they playtest aton, but they still are amazing magic players.

Here is a real life example: My boss is a UFC fight trainer. He was working with a 4x World Champion Heavy Weight Brazilian Jui-Jitsu World Champion "Napao" Gonzaga. My boss (who has been a fighter for 30+ years) was teaching "Napao" Elbow/Knee strikes. Within 2 hours of training Gonzaga had completely surpassed my boss in skill with strikes, because he is just that TALANTED and that GOOD.

This to me is the equivilant of a pro player becoming better with a deck in 10 games with it then an average player who has had the same deck in his hands for 3 months just because the pro player is so good.

[vroman]

I playtest lots of different decks daily. I consider myself an expert w any variety of stax, control slaver and goblins. Im very experienced piloting oath, tendrils combo, and gifts as well, though havnt put in quite as much time as the first list. it just so happens that when tournaments roll around, I havnt found a reason to ever play anything other than uba.

[Komatteru]

As one of said mentioned specialists, I have some insight to offer.  I'm a specialist of an archetype rather than a deck itself.  I had some good success with Long over the time I played it continuously, and recently I've had a ton of success with Belcher.  I can still play Storm combo better than anyone, as I reaffirmed the other night in a very small, yet strong event.  While I don't currently have most of the cards for it, I can also play Dragon better than the average player.  Thus, my specialty is combo, not Long or Belcher.  It is very fortunate for me that many of the combo decks overlap considerably and the theories tend to mesh together very easily.  The transitions from Long to Belcher to Dragon are often much less marked than the transitions from, say, Tog to Slaver to Gifts.

So why do I concentrate my efforts on combo?  It just interests me.  I've owned Mana Drains since 1998, and used to play counterspells in every format where they were legal.  I guess maybe I got sick of them one day, and just decided to try something new.  Combo interests me, and I can say that it will be a long time before I ever seriously look at playing with my Mana Drains again.  I just find it to be a good match for my personal skills and talents outside of the game.  Combo is very mathematical and requires strict adherence to detail, and as a mathematics major, that's something I've grown to love.  It's also very much an exercise in puzzle solving, and as an engineer (electrical though), that's something else that really interests me.  I play this game because it is fun.  If I wanted to make a lot of money or be super famous, you can bet I'd be working my ass off on the PTQ Circuit trying to make a name for myself.  I play what interests me, and Vintage combo is definitely something that I get into.  I like the challenge, and I like how no two games are ever the same.

Also, I can't deny that holding an entire archtype on my back isn't fun.  That's not how I got into it, but something that came with the territory as I grew better at the game.

So, then, what are the benefits?  In terms of being a specialist, you get something else few people ever obtain: true oneness with your deck.  Perfect play wins games, assuming that you deck is equipped for the format.  What I mean by that is a reasonable Vintage deck -- no matter how good you are with it, you won't win with Tooth and Nail.  You can play through pretty much anything.  Nothing makes you sweat, as you know your deck inside and out.  You know its strengths as well as its flaws.  At times, you exactly why you shouldn't be playing with this deck, and know how it can be ripped to shreds just so easily.  Then you remember that every other deck has just as many issues as yours, and that no one else has even come close to discovering what you know.  Sure, the best generalists will have some insight into your deck, but they won't have nearly the same insight as you do.  You know why every card is in the deck, and can write 3-4 page essays on why Crop Rotation is essential to your deck, and why you maindeck Xantid Swarm and don't even give Defense Grid a second look.  You can make additions to your deck without testing them and just know that they're going to be amazing.  You can see how the card plays out in your mind, write it all out, and when others test the idea, they see exactly what you had written.  When it comes to new ideas, you can see how they're working almost immediately.  After 5 games, you can tell whether your  new idea is going to work or not.  One singular incident brings to mind 10,000 other similar occurrences with completely different cards, and you can use everything you've done before to see what others need to test 100 games to discover.

With all this comes a certain arrogance as well.  It is difficult to say the least.  You can see why things are essential to your deck, but it can often be difficult to explain.  It can often be frustrating to try to explain things to people, or repeat yourself over and over again.  The deck grows on you, and you see how it breathes.  Have you ever stopped to consider how you plan on potty training your kids when the time comes?  It's something that you've done so long and something that is so obvious to you that you just wonder "How the deuce am I supposed to teach this to someone else?  It's so obvious!"

You might see being limited in what you can play as a downside, but I tell you that it doesn't matter.  Specialists don't look at a tournament and see all the decks that they might be playing, but just haven't tested.  That doesn't matter.  Metagaming can be blown away with utterly perfect and savage play.  You can metagame perfectly and still draw the one match you didn't prepare for two rounds in a row and go 0-2.  That doesn't happen as a specialist.  The deck has theoretical bad matches, but that doesn't really matter to you.  You know it all, and bad matchup be damned, you'll find a way to win if there is one.  The other person's testing will never even scratch the surface of your deep bag of tricks.  Your opponent will think back to their testing and think they've got you cornered, but then, somehow, you manage to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.  Every win like that is all the more satisfying, and each round, your bag of tricks only gets deeper.  As time proceeds, the bag limits toward becoming bottomless.

There's no such thing as "forcing" your deck to win in unfavorable conditions.  There are metagames where it is considerably more difficult to win with a given deck, but knowing its ins and outs makes even the most unfavorable metagame navigable.  Arrogance can be blinding, but skill can force through anything.  Rather, the largest drawback of being a specialist is really the intimate knowledge itself.  You know exactly what your opponent should be doing to wreck you, but often stand agape as he doesn't do it.  You win games that you feel you have no business winning, and it starts to drive you insane. You've solved your own play issues already, so at the end of an event, you're not making a list of things you could have done differently to win.  Rather, you're making a list of things your opponents should have done to make you lose.  After some events, that list can be impressively long, and can be quite frightening.  You see how you should have gone 0-2 drop, but instead, walked out with a piece of power for your efforts.  The more success you have, the more you feel like you've gotten lucky.  You can make a list of "but if my opponent had..." or "if I hadn't drawn..." and see it as pure luck.  It's easy to forget that you had planned that your opponent was going to do what he did, and that you were able to rely on odds to draw something specific, or use a card you drew in a new way that you never had before.  "Demonic Consultation for Chromatic Sphere?  Who the fuck does that?"  You see that ultrafine line between winning and losing the game.  The most talented generalist can see this a bit, but the lists are no where as long.  Futhermore, the generalist can just toss these concerns aside -- next week, they won't be playing the same deck.  However, you'll likely be bringing the same thing the next time, and have to concern yourself with "did my opponents get any smarter since last week?"  Eventually, you learn to just accept this, and start to realize that you can generate the same list for any deck in any tournament if you knew enough.

You can liken a generalist to someone who has a handful of degrees at the undergraduate/graduate level, and a specialist to someone with a PhD.  The former can draw information from a wider base of knowledge pools, but the guy with the Ph.D. can tell you the most intimate details about his subject that the guy with the masters could only dream about.  Which of these is better to have: an undergrad in mechanical engineering, an MBA, and a second masters in electrical engineering, or a Ph.D. in mathematics?  The former has a wealth of opportunities to him in terms of jobs and has a broader knowledge base, but the doctor likely knows more than the guy with two masters does in terms of overall amount.

[The Atog Lord]

Steve, excellent discussion question. I know we've discussed this one IRL before...

Let me give my perspective as a specialist.

Being a specialist is a function of humility. Were I confident that I could pick up any deck and play it flawlessly, then I'd need not focus only on Control Slaver. However, quite simply, I can't. I'm not saying that I'd pick up a parfait deck and have no idea how it worked. And maybe I could get 95% of the plays right with a deck the first time I picked it up, and  99% after testing it for a week. But I'd make mistakes. If I picked up a brand new Type One deck and ran it for a week and then entered a tournament, I'd no doubt make several small mistakes. And winning tournaments is about eliminating small play mistakes.

So, at the end of the day, I play Control Slaver. Yes, as was said above, it does occupy a warm and fuzzy spot in my heart. But more than that, I know that I'll make very very few mistakes with the deck.  Perhaps another deck would be better for this or that specific metagame. But my calculation is that small mistakes I'd make with this or that deck-of-the-month would result in my having a better finish were I just to play Control Slaver.

And finally, two notes. First, this applies only to Type One, because Type One decks are harder to play than other formats' decks. (And no, I'm not trying to start a flame war or shift topic by saying this -- but I've certainly played my share of other formats at a high level, so I'm not just making this up out of nowhere).

Second, and moreover, the contrapositive to what I said above is that being a specialist requires a certain degree of mastery with your specialized deck. You can't just be "good" or even "great" with the deck. You actually have to be one with the deck. This is a concept I've talked about before in real life, but haven't posted about. Being one with your deck means that you could, if you wanted, write a primer about your deck. It means you know why every card is there, and why certain cards aren't now, but under some metagame circumstances might be. It means you don't need to memorize how to sideboard because you know _why_ you sideboard a certain way. It means knowing how each matchup with the deck plays out, what to counter, and how to play the match. I've played this game for over ten years, and I tend to be monogamous with my decks. And I can count on one hand the number of decks I've ever gotten this close with. In other words, being a specialist means putting a ton of work and effort into a deck, and isn't something that someone with only a passing level of skill with a deck can do. You'll not that in Steve's examples, there aren't many names listed for any deck type.

[Lunar]

try too hard to make "your" deck work in whatever metagame you are dealing with at the time.

JP hit it on the head with this one...

I like to think of myself as a specialist with my favorite deck (Cerebral Assasin) But I am also a realist in that I know that CA isnt always going to work for me in every given tournament I might attend...With that in mind ive made top 8s with 7/10, Riddler, Stax, Cerebral Assasin, Rivers Affinity, 2Land Belcher (older style with blue, heh)...some of these are multiples (ive made numerous top 4-8s with both Stax and Cerebral Assasin.

Sometimes I know that something like Belcher is just going to rip through a tourney though...The time I got 2nd with Riddler I had a good strong feeling that it was just the right deck to play (that and I love miller's decks, sooo good) Testing it felt right for the somewhat expected meta.

Ive also seen being a specialist work very very well for some people, for example my friend Kevin plays Keeper Style control decks (ranging from UW to UWB to UWBR) almost all the time, and he makes top 8 every time he plays it.  I think what helps off set his specialist frame of mind is that he does test quite a bit with other decks. He generally has two or three other decks at least proxied up to play with quite often to not only get a feel for how his matchup goes, but to see how they win in any given situation.

I think this is one of the most important things in the game (any format). Even if you choose to be a specialist, you need to know the ins and outs of any given deck in the format, if you dont understand how it is going to beat you you have already lost most of the time. Having a better idea what you need to set a chalice to, or what to force, or which land to waste or which ability to set a needle to is going to put you that one step ahead of the rest of the pack. One of the guys on my team was kinda semi complaining about the odd deck choices I make sometimes (cerebral assasin, heh) But I talked him out of his frame of mind by reminding him that when he gets matched up against the one or two random decks floating around he is going to be better prepaired for the match than most will. Test with AND against the field, its just as important to be the one piloting the opposing deck while testing as it is to test your deck against it.

[xrobx]

I'll try to keep this short, as I find long drawn out posts boring to read, and I don't want that happening with my post

My question is: is it better in Vintage to be a generalist or a specialist? 

Completely dependent on an individuals mental capacity/capability.  It is required that you are knowledgeable atleast somewhat of the environment, yet pay attention to fine detail and always understand innovative "tech".

a) what are the upsides of learning to pilot all of the major archetypes?

Understanding the foundational structure behind decks allows for easier matchups.  Relevant to probability and psychological impact....read on.

b) what are the upsides of learning to play just a single deck?

If you learn a single deck very well, you will understand probabilities and know the capabilities of your deck.

c) what are the drawbacks? 

Drawbacks of generalist: not aware of fundamental specifics which compromise game making plays.
(ie. If playing vs gifts, the stress being put on the odds of them having said card in hand.  In traditional gifts, you'd expect 3-4/60 to be gifts.  However, in recent builds players have used 2 gifts more often.  This knowledge is detrimental, as it allows you to properly estimate probabilities of said card draws/plays.)

Drawbacks of specialist: Over analyzation and tunnel vision.  Similarly to a detective, who develop tunnel vision as they try only to find evidence that will fit their case, players make crucial mistakes in embarking on critical deck analysis when in fact, the deck in question isn't the deck that you should play at all.  Maybe it's strictly inferior to another deck, or simply out of date.  Too much work on your own deck will make your eyes go buggy and you'll forget that tinker is all about magic and yawgmoths will...I mean...magic is all about those...you get it

**note: on the psychological implication mentioned above, this relates to bluffing, understanding a bluff, and realizing when to bluff.  Yes, magic is like any other game of chance.

[Vegeta2711]

You know some of these 'generalist' responses make 'being good with more than one deck' sound like 'you suck at magic'. Yes there is a difference between being good with a deck and basically being attuned with it, but if your general play suffers, that stems from a skill problem and not a deck issue.

[Buttons]

I'm a Specialist.

Being a Specialist, you know how to mulligan extremely well.  I mean EXTREMELY well.  Far better than most every Generalist.  (with your deck, of course.  You can't do jack with other decks)

If I'm playing Uba, and I know I'm up against Gifts in the top 8, and he's running Colossus AND Belcher, pre-board, I can almost always know whether to mulligan or not, and there's not a lot of hesitation or thinking involved.  This goes with most any deck.

The problem is that actually PLAYING the game, I might make play errors that Generalists won't.

Generalists know how every deck is going to try to play against them, and what options are more desirable.  For instance, I can't do much with a Gifts deck - that is, I can't play it well.

Being a specialist, you depend on your deckbuilding skills MUCH more than you do your play skills.  You hope that by perfecting those last few slots and ESPECIALLY sideboard slots, you can win through play errors.

Sideboard is a tricky issue, because Specialists will really know what aides their deck more, but might make a miscalculation, like adding in 2 of the desired sideboard card instead of three, when a Generalist might add in the right amount, but the wrong card.  (not even kidding.)

For instance, playing Uba against Gifts, Tormod's Crypt is your best friend, even with the Null Rod dissynergy.  A generalist might not be able to see that.

In general *grins*, I'd say that it's better to be a Generalist.  The benefits outweigh the detriments.  So you mull over your decision for like 5 minutes, so what.  You eventually make the right decision (in almost every case) and if you don't, your play wins you the game.

Far better than an amazing hand that goes sour because you're so excited you forget to put a counter on your Stack.  (not saying that Generalists don't make this mistake ever, *grins at Smennen*, but Specialists, I feel are much more apt to make a play error such as this.)

[forests failed you]

I would say that in order to win consistently you need both generalist and specialist knowledge.  The more general knowledge that one has about all of the decks in the format, the better they are able to pilot their specific deck of choice.  First and foremost, one can't win if they don't know how to play their own deck correctly; however, the best way to understand how one's deck works within different specific match ups is to understand the other decks one is playing against.  Therefore Generalist knowledge helps one to understand specifics of a particular deck.

[Jacob Orlove]

Being a specialist, you depend on your deckbuilding skills MUCH more than you do your play skills.  You hope that by perfecting those last few slots and ESPECIALLY sideboard slots, you can win through play errors.

That makes no sense. A specialist, by definition, is good at playing the deck he specializes in. While it's true that specialists can usually do a better job of fine-tuning their list, they also make fewer direct mistakes. Their incomplete understanding of other decks could lead to indirect mistakes, but since their understanding of those decks is in the context of the specific matchup they have, they'll usually be fine (eg a specialist Dragon player probably couldn't do well with Gifts, but he should be able to play Gifts pretty well against Dragon).

[J J P]

IMHO it depends on the kind of deck you are playing. If it is a combo deck that doesn't want to interact with the opponent at all knowing as much about the deck as possible should be the way to go. But when you are playing something rather interactive it is very helpful to know your opponent's point of view.

[Godder]

This question is asked in chess a great deal with respect to opening theory. Which opening(s) players learn, and how many, depends on temperament (some players like variety, some don't) and how much time they have available to study theory (or playtest, as the case may be). More complex decks require more time to master, and the more decks you try to play, the more time it takes to be able to play them at a high level as well. I have suspicions that the "best" way to do it is to pick two decks that occupy opposite parts of the metagame clock, and then play the more appropriate one for the expected environment at a given tournament.

[The Atog Lord]

One thing I'd like to point out is that being a specialist doesn't mean being ignorant of other decks. It doesn't mean that you only know how one deck works, or that you're familiar with only one deck. Rather, it means that there is a single deck on which you focus the vast majority of your time. However, part of that focus requires playing with other decks and learning how other decks work. You can't very well expect to get your Control Slaver deck to beat Grim Long unless you play some games with Grim Long and understand how it works.

How do you sideboard? Which spells do you counter? Which hands do you keep? These are questions that you can best answer by playing a match from both sides of the table. So, in fact, being a specialist requires that you follow other decks in the metagame, if only in order to defeat them.