Knowledge still means a lot, but only if the knowledgeable player is going to take you into deep waters to put you in positions you may not have thought about. If the old pro is going to try to out shoot the young pro, he is playing right into the novice shooter's wheelhouse. The old pro has to embrace the grind to "find out what Filler doesn't know", as Jeremy Jones often says. That usually means slowing the game down and making every ball count. No thoroughbred ever liked a sloppy track.
I think there are very quantitative reasons that does not work though. Moving I mean.
First, I hope nobody think I am saying moving is unimportant. More what I am saying is a guy has two years of one hole knowledge (under high pressure) he will be fine up against a guy with 20 years, as long as he has the edge in shooting.
Back to the point though... bear with me please... there was an Indian artifact burial site by my house where I grew up. They wanted to put apartments on top of the site, but the lawyers who fought against it won many victories in a row and the apartments were not able to go up.
Yet the next court battle the builders won. Guess what, that's all it took. Half a dozen court cases, the developers won a single case and now they are the winners forever.
Same principle applies in one pocket. The math just is not there. If you move move move, and that is your game, you miss your spot by an inch one time, or a ball leaks out unexpectedly when you go into the stack, and it is over.... forever like the apartments. It is highly favorable to be those apartment developers or the shooter in other words, because you only have to win once, whereas the other guy has to constantly perform and execute, constantly be perfect.
I really feel it should not even be a discussion to be honest, look at who wins one pocket tournaments. I think if moving was anywhere near as important as we think it is, great movers who are a cut or two below the shooters on offense would win often.