Forums

Advice on fighting fire with fire so to speak

Sort:
csalami
rdecredico írta:
I_Am_Second wrote:
rdecredico wrote:

Memorizing openings is a good idea.  Most people unable to do it.

Seriously.

If you have the skills to completely memorize an entire opening complex you are going to be a very strong chess player.  


 

If you dont understand the ideas behind the moves youre memorizing it does no good to commit them to memory.

If you memeorize all the right moves there is no reason to have an understanding.

All an UNDERSTANDING is in chess is knowing which move is the best to make. 

Memory is the single most important skill in chess. 

You're wrong. 
You would be right if it was possible for humans to memorize every move. Then we wouldn't need understanding. But think about it: Even in the starting position there are 20 possible for moves for both sides on move 1. Do you really believe anyone can memorize everything? And this number won't really go down until pieces come off the board. We just simply know that from the 20 initial moves available to white on move 1 the best moves are 1. e4 and 1.d4. Of course all other moves are playable, but those are the best. And this happens in every position in chess. You have to understand why you are playing the moves you play and only after that can you memorize a lots of moves. Without knowing the reasons behind the moves (which in the opening are often just it develops a piece to a good square, but they may have concrete threats in a given position) you will never learn an opening for 20 moves or so) 

But I will simply just ask you this question if you really believe memory is everything in chess: What do you think, how can like 13 years old GM kids beat adult GMs who are playing for 20-30 years on the grandmaster level?(Of course those kids usually become super GMs or something like that, but notice that they have less knowledge and less time to learn)
 
And no, chess is not a game of information, too much knowlegdge can often confuse you because you may not be able to decide which factors are more important in a given position. Simple is better than complex. 
And even if you think about it, computers are not stronger than humans because they have more knowledge, but because they can calculate millions of position during a second. And concrete variations decide everything in chess. Human's can't compete with that level of calculation which is most of the time flawless. Human's can't calculate flawlessly. 

I_Am_Second
rdecredico wrote:

Last bit of irony:  The 'understanding is more important' people sure have memorized their little spiel about how bad memorization is!

Remember!  There is no understanding anything without memory.




Here is fyundamental mistake these people make: Memory and understanding are NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE properties.  There are intertwined.

Anyone that plays music at a high level (or high level mathematics) KNOWS that memorization is what BUILDS understanding.

Stop this silliness that they are competing with each other.
 

I dont think anyone is saying that memorization is not important.  But what is important is understading what you have memorized.  I hear players so often talk about how they know a line 20 moves deep, and Fritz says they are good by .4 pawns.  But when you ask them what that means, and why a certain move in an opening is played they dont know why.

ipcress12

I hear players so often talk about how thye know a line 20 moves deep, and Fritz says they are good by .4 pawns.

Are there really players who talk that way? I have not returned to tournament chess yet -- just chess at a park, in a club and here -- so perhaps I lead a sheltered life.

All I can imagine is that there are some teens who obsess on memorizing lines and working out on the computer like those other kids who work up electric guitar versions of the Pachelbel Canon which you can see on YouTube.

But how common are they?

I_Am_Second
ipcress12 wrote:

I hear players so often talk about how thye know a line 20 moves deep, and Fritz says they are good by .4 pawns.

Are there really players who talk that way? I have not returned to tournament chess yet -- just chess at a park, in a club and here -- so perhaps I lead a sheltered life.

All I can imagine is that there are some teens who obsess on memorizing lines and working out on the computer like those other kids who work up electric guitar versions of the Pachelbel Canon which you can see on YouTube.

But how common are they?

Oh yea...mainly kids, and lowered rated players. 

cornbeefhashvili

Opening is not the problem. It is more in your technique and tactical eye.

I_Am_Second
cornbeefhashvili wrote:

Opening is not the problem. It is more in your technique and tactical eye.

+1!

lolurspammed

All stages of the game are important. Telling people to not care about one stage of the game is bad advice on any level.

I_Am_Second
lolurspammed wrote:

All stages of the game are important. Telling people to not care about one stage of the game is bad advice on any level.

Agreed, and i wasnt clear as to what i meant when i said forget about openings.  As others have said, learn a couple openings for white, and black, and learn and understand the basic ideads behind those openings.  Remembering lines and lines of theory is a waste unless youre a GM.

lolurspammed

Play the Bird. It went undefeated at the Qatar masters.

ipcress12

My only agruement is with the OP saying he wants to learn Off Beat lines. If this is the first time in which he has began studying openings than I would study the mainline's first. Studying an off beat line seems rather strange. I mean how many people play off beat lines once and a blue moon.

XP: The King's Gambit may be off the beaten trail these days, but is not the Orangutan or 1.a3.

The King's Gambit has a noble pedigree and it is still claiming victims, now and then, at the highest levels. Just as Spassky beat Fischer, Karpov, Korchnoi and Bronstein with the KG, Simon Williams still assays it against top competition and Shimanov beat Kamsky just last year.

At the class level in Slow Chess here at chess.com, the King's Gambit is lethal with stats: 0.67 wins, 0.11 draws, 0.22 losses.

Goob63

It's not my first time learning openings... Or else I wouldn't know a sideline or just out of book move. I said earlier I've given every respectable opening a shot or two, by just learning a few moves and ideas before had. I can play against these weird moves just fine. It's just a huge buzz kill hoping to play a certain position in an opening and just never making it there. So I wanted something different myself to play once in awhile. I have played the Kings gambit and will bring it back eventually as I really enjoyed it. I think I'm going to settle on the tromposky. Still a good opening. Just not to well known and easy to play. b3 also looked appealing but I just wasn't sold on some of the middle game positions

ipcress12

Goob: Say it ain't so! The Tromp? Not the King's Gambit?

Well. I'll just have to bear it with grace.

erikido23
rdecredico wrote:
erikido23 wrote:
rdecredico wrote:

Memorizing openings is a good idea.  Most people unable to do it.

Seriously.

If you have the skills to completely memorize an entire opening complex you are going to be a very strong chess player.  


 

Not true.  A player I used to play with all the time had about 40 different opening lines memorized and we would play for a whole night.  She would be lucky if she won a game.  Chess is a game of understanding more so than memorization

She obviously did not have enough memorized.

Chess is a game of information.

Try playing chess against an engine that has no memory. See, without memory, than one cannot even remember that 'UNDERSTANDING' is supposed to be so vital.

I suggest that most people that think memorization is not sp good are:

~ bad at memorization (its actually hard)
~ confused about what memory actually is 

Having an understanding of something is only possible if people MEMORIZE things.   Memorization IS learning.

 Without memory and the ability to memorize there is no reason to even read a book or a forum post.  If one cannot remember an explanation that one cannot use their 'understanding.'  All understanding: the ability to go into one's MEMORY and extract the required information needed to make a decision.

Amusing...Yes, memorizing is difficult and it goes away after a while(I have forgotten more about chess than you will probably ever know).  That is the difference between understanding and memorization.  Understanding NEVER goes away.  Memorization does.