Does more knowledge enhance your chance of doing better and 'original' research (in mathematics)? NOTE: I had asked this question in here, in my edit, but since it is irrelevant to that question, I moved it here as it is a separate question...

I chose to study bulky books instead of attending lectures or studying lecture notes, because I thought that studying every line of the books would enable me to have a rich access to the largest possible knowledge in my mind (not in the library) to have more creativity in time of doing research. By that, I mean I thought that the more techniques I would know, the more able I could be to test many 'keys' to open impenetrable problems. Unfortunately, due to never being in a university environment (as I am a high school student) I couldn't ask it whether I am wrong or not. I would truly appreciate it if someone would please guide me regarding that issue: Does more knowledge enhance chance of solving challenging problem in mathematics?          

(Supposing that someone who has learned a lot of stuff will not forget it with the passage of time)

Added to express my question more clear - My personal opinion is that the more problems (few from each of many different types not many from each of limited diversity) you solve the more expert you become in maths. This can include 'slow'-extension (i.e. not a breakthrough); e.g. after learning definitions and some theorems regarding different types of spaces in General Topology finding their relationships with each other as exercise. This approach can be (IMHO) helpful for many different situations from IMO participants to graduate research students. But, Does it helpful or harmful for being sharp to do a breakthrough research in Mathematics (like works of Gödel or Perelman)?
Intuitively, of course the answer should be yes.  Surprisingly, however, in reality the answer is sometimes no.

A common saying, which to the best of my knowledge has no known attribution, goes something along the lines of: "The fools didn't know it was impossible, so they did it!"

To achieve a significant original scientific contribution, you need to know enough to have a sound basis to build upon.  You also need to avoid immersing yourself too deeply in conventional wisdom and groupthink, or else you are likely to have your originality bleed away from you.

Moreover, every hour spent reading the works of another is an hour not spent producing works of your own.  But of course, you can waste a huge amount of time if you end up reinventing another's idea or miss an important clue in somebody else's work.  So across a scientific life, you will end up wobbling back and forth on a balance between spending more time acquiring knowledge and spending more time generating it yourself.  Early in your career, you will spend most of your time acquiring knowledge, because you need to get to a point where you can understand what is unknown well enough to begin grappling with it meaningfully.  Later you may spend more time working on creating new knowledge, but must also keep up with your reading to keep from going stale.

Even in old and well established fields, however, it's surprisingly easy to get out to the edge of human knowledge and find yourself tangling with some of the interesting things we do not know.  Like, how do cats drink water? We only learned that a couple of years ago.  Heck, we're still figuring out how bicycles work!

If you don't have enough knowledge, you may not notice that there's a problem worth solving there, and you certainly won't have the tools to solve it.  If you're too saturated in the knowledge of others, you might not notice the problem either, because you might end up accepting their explanations instead.

In sum: you must know your fundamentals, know your field, and know how to go looking for specific pieces of additional knowledge.  But knowledge is not originality, and although knowledge often supports originality, it can also interfere with it.