[clarnibass]

As an obssesbie improviser and chess player and I agree with most of what he says, especially his ideas. He has some facts wrong, for example in the highest level of chess memorizing is a huge part of the game and players really don't put any of it aside when playing. Also for jazz he then says "solos" which only a part of jazz and a lot of the improvisations are not solos.

In chess there are the rules of the game, and in music there are limitations that are equivilent to chess rules (i.e. if you play saxophone you can't sound like a piano). After those limitations, which in music are just natural and in chess are decided, then comes the logic and in that chess and jazz are very similar. Playing a lick without any connection to the specific music you are playing is pretty much the same as a blunder

 

[clarnibass]

Horrible analogy in my opinion. Who exactly are you playing against, in jazz? Critics? Who cares if the musicians recognize your licks as being memorized? How are they going to check mate you, exactly? By pulling another Pat Metheny? Is the point in jazz to checkmate other musicians? What context was he talking in? Are the other musicians listeners, or part of the band one is playing in? Why are jazz purists so arrogant? Don't they have other things to live for besides their music?

I think you are missing the analogy. There are similarities and there are differencnes just like any comparison and just because there are differences it doesn't mean it sucks. By the way, when you play chess you are not only playing against someone, you are also playing with someone.