See what you just did there? See how you allowed your stupidity to manipulate a statement again?
What I said was if a CRAP player beats a GREAT player, with a memorized string of moves that put him in an overwhelming advantage, then that's a neat trick.
You took this as a weird absolute statement about memorization that betrays your lack of understanding of the game.
If a great player happens to use a string of moves he finds familiar, this is not a trick, because he isn't relying on the opponent to proceed according to the trick's plan, he's prepared for any move the opponent makes.
So I'm going to answer your point form questions, but please do me the courtesy of recognizing why the questions are stupid.
If you don't know how to play the game, then yes. Obviously, that's a neat trick. If you do know how to play the game, then referring to your strategy as "a list of memorized moves" is bizarre. Every move that happens will change your strategy, you don't rely on a single list of moves. Perhaps what you really mean is this: 1: If a useless player that would never beat a champion, does so with a memorized list of moves, is that a trick?
YES, that's a neat trick the useless player pulled off.
If you cripple a grandmaster not with raw open-world strategy but a set list of memorized moves, then yes that's a neat trick. But similarly odd in phrasing.
What the fuck is the difference? If your intention is to use a list of moves to chance upon a win with a greater player, then yes your pathetic effort to use the trick can start from the opening move.
In all likelihood your trick will not work, because of the nature of the game having too many variables, but if your opponent happens to fall into line and get trapped, then your trick worked that time.