The parallel with chess players also occured to me and I think it's pretty good. On less prestige tournaments (average FIDE rating up to 2100 or so) the difference can be seen quite often. There are the sorcerer-like players who have the natural insight into the game, but are uninterested in theory and only gain experience by playing. Then there are the wizards - those who analyze the games, study textbook openings, work with databases and engines, most of the time they even prepare for their opponent by studying his/her older games etc.

Generally, the wizard-players take the game much more seriously and can sometimes be envious of the sorcerer's talent. Also, they tend to make mistakes more often when the playing environment is not optimal (little time left, noise etc). Sorcerers, on the other hand, are sometimes impatient, may get bored with the game and can easily underestimate their opponent. So it's somehow balanced.

Of course, to ascend to the highest echelons of chess playing one needs both natural talent and serious theoretical background.