agreed. Many people also make the mistake of choosing the most popular openings, even though sometimes it doesn't follow their style. You don't need to know many openings to be successful at chess, and you don't need to know popular openings either. Focus on a few openings that really complement your style, and know them well.

Hey, come on. Chess is a GAME. Let's not lose that simple fact. That it helps memory, foresight, logical thought etc. is a corollary. Ciao!!

Chess is not a language, chess is war.

 

As for if we should compare chess to a language or to a programming language I have this to say =)

 

Programming language = elegant, logical and goal based. Good comparison if your main purpouse with chess is to win.

Language or conversation = elegant, beautiful, communication. Good comparison if you see chess as a way of interacting with another human being, as art or as something more then a puzzle to beat.

 I put no value in any option and can agree with both ways of seeing chess. 

 Tomas

Stating that chess is a language is good, saying that an opening is a language doesn't feel right for me though. I would see it like this.

 

1. Chess is a langauge and a game is a conversation.
   
2. An opening is saying "hi" while another opening is saying "hello".
3. You need only to be able to say "hi" to carry on the conversation.
4. Knowing how to say "hi", "hello", "good day", "good evening" etc. are tools for a better, more well rounded, conversation.
5. Understanding when each of those greetings is the better or more elegant options is what makes you a good conversationalist just like understanding the meaning behind each opening and when to use them is what makes you a good opening chessplayer.

Following this train of thoughts understanding different techniques and tactical reasoning in the middle game and end game can be compared to understanding grammar while learning different situations by heart is like learning proverbs or metaphorical turns of speech. Proverbs are useful in a conversation but understanding them fully is what makes you a great conversationalist.

 Just my thoughts.

Tomas 

I don't want to contribute to the confusion regarding the language metaphor.  Mathematics is the language of science.  Perhaps it's better to leave linguistics and go to computer science, and compare learning chess with learning a computer programming language.  I noticed that as I understand Python, e.g., I can also understand a piece of code written in Ruby or some of the other languages.  Concluding, especially if someone is making a poll out of this, it's better to learn a few Openings, instead of many, as chessiq stated.

Comparing math and languages to chess:

 

When I was in school, I was very good at math. I understood the concepts the first time I was shown them, so I would get bored and do homework while the teacher explained the same thing several different ways for the students who had a harder time grasping the concepts. 

 

At the same time, I had a hard time in my foreign language classes. I would understand the concepts when the teacher taught us how to conjugate verbs or whatever, but I would have trouble remembering all the vocabulary words.

 

Now that I'm an adult trying to improve at chess, I find that chess study is the same way as both of these at the same time. I understand chess concepts when they're presented to me. But when there's memorization involved, like when trying to remember an opening where several moves are possible, and you have to remember which response is best against each one, that's where I have problems. 

 

As an example, I read Pandolfini's Endgame Course a while ago. Everything always made sense as I read it, and I can play out the easier stuff in my games with no problems even after just seeing it once, such as knowing exactly how to play lone pawn endgames correctly. But then there are dozens of scenarios of how to handle rook and pawn vs rook endgames, and each one made sense when I was reading the book, but remembering which is which and knowing how to play out the scenario when it comes up in my games is another matter.

 

I think this is why I like Silman's Complete Endgame Course better. In one chapter, he introduces the basic Lucena and Philidor positions in those types of endgames, and nothing else. Because there's only two positions to remember, it's pretty easy to tell them apart and not confuse them with other stuff. The other types of endgames with those pieces are in later chapters.

 

 --Fromper

Seems to me one would do well to become generally acquainted with a number of openings first, or just generally familiar with chess.  Otherwise, how is one to know which opening suits them or fits their style?  I suspect that after playing a number of openings for awhile, one would naturally gravitate towards one or more that "fits" one.  Then would be the time to focus on one only.  But the very first step would be to become familiar with opening principles.

Well technically it is not a language (psychoanalytical language maybe?) but, no matter, your comparison does stand as the learning process of languages makes a good image to how one should learn the openings. But yeah, it did make sense, at least according to logic and all advices I've read by chess teachers.

Etienne - Mathematical language sounds good to me!

I am still wondering if my "advice" to Venon made sense? May be we need to resolve the issue of whether Chess is like a language first?

May be the question should be asked, would you advise somebody to focus on one or a few things first, or explore as much as you can and then choose what you really like?

Maybe it's a mathematical language? Double confusion...

Hi, nice thoughts.

I believe that Mathematic is a language. I really don't believe that women are better or worse than men at anything. :)

That's just to run away from consusion as fashionable as possible, hehe 

hmm...

Here's my conundrum.

 

given: One person will say that one difference between men and women is that men tend to favor the type of hard, logical thinking such as required by mathematics, while women tend to excel in the softer, more cognitive types of thinking, such as used in language.

 

given: One person will say that chess is like mathematics.

 

given: one person will say chess is like language.

 

 conclusion: confusion

its nice to know that chess is some kind of a very important in one's life. first, we make our lives more challenging. aside from that, we are practicing something in our cognitive aspect. chess as a language, yes it is!