Do you create flowcharts for your openings?

It strikes me that openings, at least the first few moves, can be put into flowchart form as a memory aide.

Anyone tried this?

No I don't but I might start as it sounds like a nice idea. (I like flowcharts)

Terrible idea.

The fact that you are uttering the word "Memory" already tells me you have it all wrong.

Openings are not about memory. They are about understanding!

Memory does not do you any good. You need to UNDERSTAND. WHY is 4.X the best move?

Example:

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Nc6.

Then I hear people say "But the book says 5.Nf3, and therefore you are supposed to play 5.Nf3. I so had you because your 5th move was wrong. You got lucky."

Uhm, NO! The real truth is, whether White played 5.Be3 (a sideline), 5.a3 (a premature move) or 5.f4 (a dubious move AT BEST), you clearly don't have a clue what you are doing, and just memorized a bunch of lines and don't actually understand what you are doing. If you actually study and understand an opening, rather than walk around like a chicken with its head chopped off by merely memorizing lines, you ought to know what to do against these offbeat, and usually bad, sidelines.

I faced a 2050 player about 5 or 6 years ago that played 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Qb6 5.Ne2 (instead of 5.Nf3 - the 4...Qb6 move order prevents the 5.Be3 line, but commits Black to the 5...Qb6 line after 5.Nf3 Nc6 rather than having the 5...Bd7 or 5...Nh6 option).

He was dead lost by move 18 and the game was no more than 30 moves. With Ne2 instead of Nf3, the e5-pawn is weaker, and if f4, there are pinning issues on the g1-a7 diagonal. Your follow up moves will likely be different than if he played 5.Nf3. You cannot just ignore his move and play the same routine moves anyway. You've got to adapt to the position at hand, not some memorized line of moves.

Instead of wasting your time on Flowcharts, spend that time wisely actually putting in the effort to UNDERATAND whatever opening you are studying.

Aren't both required? Understanding and memory?

No!

By understanding, certain moves will come to you naturally where memory is not required.

After 1.e4 e6 2.d4, you UNDERSTAND that you cannot let that strong center sit like that, and so 2...d5 comes naturally once you understand WHY you are playing it.

Now, if all you did was memorize, then explain to me, when should you and when should you not play 3...c5 and why?

If all you can do is tell me that you don't play it vs 3.Nc3, and I ask you why I shouldn't play it, and you can't say why, you are clueless.

After 3.e5, all pressure is off of Black's d5 pawn. The center is closed. 3...c5 is natural and best.

After 3.Nd2, White is impeding his own development just to avoid a pin. The knight blocks the Bishop, and the Bishop blocks the Rook. Black wants very fast and active moves. White can still take on d5, leaving Black with a weak d-pawn, but with slow development, and the Knight already committed to d2, it is hard to attack the d5-pawn, and you are willing to deal with the isolani for the activity against White's slow play.

After 3.Nc3, 3...c5?? Is a terrible move. White has not committed to lock the center, and so exd5 is still possible. The Knight is on c3, directly attacking d5. We don't want a weak Isolani on d5. Therefore, we must do something about his e4-pawn. Either take it with the pawn, eliminating the exd5 idea. Attack it again with 3...Nf6, trying to get White to advance e5 so that Black can play c5. Or indirectly attack it by pinning the defender, the knight on c3, to the King with 3...Bb4, again looking to entice e5 by White so that we can break with ...c5.

If you cannot explain this in words, you have no idea why you are playing ...c5 and when you can and can't do it.

There is no reason to memorize this. Common sense says attack a pawn chain at the base. The base is d4. So The idea behind...c5 should be obvious, but you need to also know WHEN you can play it and when it is just outright bad.

Also, 3...Nf6 has a specific point - to entice e5. Black WANTS White to play e5. 3...Ne7 is useless. It puts no pressure on e4, and has no real future from there with a White pawn still on e4. The f5-square is not available to Black here. But once White plays e5, it is a whole different story. Ne7 and c5 are both legit moves. Hence after 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5, Black's 2 most common moves are 4...c5 and 4...Ne7, two moves that were both bad just one move ago!

Well, let's say White played a useless move like 3.a3. After 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.a3, should Black play 3...c5? The answer is no! But without understanding why it is played at times, you would be clueless, no matter how much you memorize. White can still play exd5 and Nc3. Black should either accept the pawn on e4, but likely give it back eventually, or hit it again with a developing move like 3...Nf6. But 3...c5 is just a bad move there.

Memorizing does you no good.

So good chess players never memorize any lines?

@ThrillerFan is correct, this is the best way to improve and the best way to play chess, but it isn't the only way. Presumably a vast majority of chess players do in fact play 'flowchart chess', memorizing lines and playing weaker middlegames and endgames to make up for the quality of the openings they play and learn. At a certain level, weak GM perhaps, bulk memorizing theory is actually the best way to play, because they will intuitively understand the position once they're there, but they do need to get to a logical conclusion to theory, or they will be in a much worse position.

Yes, of course. But most people us a database software. For example

- chessbase (the most expensive)

- an old Fritz 8 or 9 version second hand (very cheap)

- SCID vs. PC (free)

- chess pgn master (for my android phone)

No - actually the most elite chess players often learn off what teams of players (computers these days) give them by rote as preparation and have no idea why they're playing those moves, they simply trust the lines given.

ThrillerFan is a bit of a "colourful" character around here, he figures out an opinion then he becomes extremely passionate about it, acting very authoritative and like no other views are reasonable.

MMA causes irreversible brain damage. There is no easy way to put it.