Does anyone memorize all variations for 1.e4?

I believe the word you are looking for is right there in my previous post.

Understand!

Understanding and Memorizing are nowhere near the same thing!

Again, take the following 2 lines:

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 Ne7 7.Qg4 Qc7 8.Qxg7 Rg8 9.Qxh7 cxd4 10.Ne2 Nbc6 11.f4 dxc3 12.Qd3 d4

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nxc3 6.bxc3 Bg7 7.Bc4 c5 8.Ne2 O-O 9.O-O Nc6 10.Be3 Bg4 11.f3 Na5 12.Bxf7+

The first is a line (not the only line) of the French Poisoned Pawn.  The second is the Seville Variation of the Grunfeld, named after where the match was played between Kasparov and Karpov.

I have "memorized" two lines.

However, I can explain IN WORDS the ideas for BOTH SIDES, and also explain WHY other moves are wrong (excluding different variations, like 7...O-O and 7...Kf8 are both fine as well - I have played them both), such as 10.cxd4?? (And hence why the pawn is poisoned).  I can explain follow-up ideas for both sides.  I UNDERSTAND the French Defense.

The same cannot be said about me and the Grunfeld.  I can reel off a half dozen to a dozen lines.  It does not mean I understand it.  The moment someone deviates, barring outright hanging a piece, you ask me what is systemically wrong with the move played?  BEATS ME!  You play 12 moves of the Seville - Great!  Now what?  Just because I memorized 12 moves means nothing if I am clueless how to follow up the next 30 moves.

If this does not make sense, then try another comparison.

In a history class, Understanding it means you know what the people were going thru during the Civil War in the United States.  What the underground railroad was.  What life was like for those trying to escape thru the underground railroad.  The pain and suffering that many went thru.  Many did not survive not because they were caught, but rather starved or dehydrated themselves to death.  This is just one very very small piece of the war.

A memorizer would simply say the war started April 1961, ended April 1965, Harriet Tubman lead the underground railroad and all were happy to escape.  Think of this like memorizing as opening because this person clearly did not understand what went on with the underground railroad, what he said was false, memorized a few dates, and failed history class like I would fail if I continued to play the Grunfeld!

And yet, I can prove it both thru myself and thru others I know!

I do not care to do it, but all it would take to prove it is having myself play a dozen games as White and a dozen games as Black in the following openings:

French Defense

Queen's Gambit Declined

Queen's Gambit Accepted

King's Indian Defense

Closed Sicilian

Italian Game

Grunfeld Defense

Modern Benoni

Scandinavian Gambit (3.c4 c6 4.dxc6 Nxc6)

Reti Opening

If I played 240 games, 12 with each opening with each color, regardless of results, and you looked at whether the side I was playing showed signs of having a cohesive plan, that demonstration of understanding was shown, you would see that in my games in the first 6 openings listed.  The moment you start looking at those last 4 openings, you would likely see a lot of errors on my part, drawing games I should have won, losing games because I have no idea what I am doing, etc.

We are assuming these games would be classic time control, like game in 2 hours each.

again more grandstanding, drawing attention upon oneself. that's not proof.

memorizing and understanding are not mutually exclusive and i never said anything about preferring one over the other.

No...the average chess player sucks. 

Once I gave advice to guy who asked for advice. And he finally admitted he was only interested in memorizing moves(and only 'winning' moves that are short). Even communication is suspect.

How suspect? Not even openings 101 the first sentence....cause it didnt appeal to winning and short. It was (his reply put to the test as black )1e4 e5 2Qh5 Qf6! and 3 ...Bc5 lol....after a long theory by me. At least my opponent got something from it....it was "100% correct". 

As a beginner I think it can be good to learn some moves that prevents you from falling into the most common basic traps, because it makes it no fun playing chess if you to fall into them. But I wouldn´t try to learn those short winning moves with the purpose to use them myself, even if they could help me win a few games it will not help me in the long run when I start facing higher rated opponents who wont fall for them.

I never taught my students the 2 and 4 move mates.  Why?  Because when you teach them to kids and beginners they fall in love with them and think they will work forever.  But if you let them fall for them a few times, they will come to you and ask "why?"and  "what happened?"

Its the same thing with beginners and openings.  They do not choose openings properly. 

Beginners choose openings based on wanting to appear "tactical" and being "aggressive".   Or they choose openings based on what their favorite player plays.  The second mistake they make is they just memorize moves, and have no basic understanding of "why" those move are made.  And thirdly, when this approach bombs.  They now want to know "tricks" to win. 

I completely understand that there is nothing "sexy" or "fun" about learning and understanding the basics of the game.  Its much cooler sounding to be able to say "I know the <insert opening here>10...20 moves deep."  But when youre not improving you have to ask why?

Look, I am simply trying to answer the questions asked.  You and your stupid horsesh*t about making claims of my trying to draw attention to myself is false.  If I wanted to toot my horn, I wouldn't say anything about failures!  I am simply trying to answer the OP's questions and your stupid remarks with examples, and obviously I know a lot more about my own successes and failures than some random Joe Shmo on chess.com.  I can spend days going thru someone else's games to find an example of clear understanding vs being lost the moment a game goes out of book, or I can use an example I already know of.

All you are trying to do is start up some argument and then when everything you state is answered, just try to play Devil's Advocate like a stupid retard scratching and clawing for a way to continue an argument!

Shut up, Moron!

I've proven my point that memorization equates to failure, and understanding equates to success.  Anything else you say should be ignored by everyone else on this thread because clearly everything you say is totally useless!

I can read books on how to perform open heart surgery by MEMORIZING everything i read.  But that doesn't make me qualified to perform the surgery.

I can read and MEMORIZE all the flight manuals for a Boeing 747.  But that doesn't make me qualified to fly one. 

I can read and MEMORIZE how a nuclear power plants works.  But that doesn't mean I should be operating one. 

But yea...If anyone thinks memorization is the key to chess improvement?  Then by all means please continue.

If you're going to memorize and not ask "why?"  You get what you deserve.

referring to #27

All this proves is you don't understand the implication of your categorical comments, setting aside the fact that they're insulting and insensitive. And so you keep circling towards yourself as you have no clue what to argue for or against.

Have I struck a nerve for calling what you are doing as it is?

You seem to have lost your civility if you ever had one in the first place.

No, all this proves is you are a complete imbecile!

Putting in any effort to inject even an ounce of common sense into you is useless!

I gave examples!  Evidence!  Post 28 also gives examples and evidence!  If you do not get the point or see it as a lack of proof, then just go away and join a tic tax toe site!  Maybe there is a slight bit of hope that you understand how to draw that game, because clearly you do not understand communication or chess!

from insulting comments to character assault. that escalated fast. i was wondering whether i need to point out here on this post the flaws of your premise, but i see no point.

when people point out you are wrong, you lash out and call them insulting names, you try to destroy their character and reputation, and no amount of reason will change that as far as i can tell.

I would bet good money that I have been playing a lot longer than you have, and to say that I am wrong that understanding is far more important than memorizing just goes to show how dumb you really are!

I make no claim to know everything about chess.  You might know more Najdirf theory than me.  I am a French advocate, not a Sicilian advocate.  But you are not going to win the argument claiming that understanding is not more important than memorizing, and trying to claim that memorizing is the way to go.

i never stated nor implied that memorizing without understanding is the way to go. in fact i mentioned that for me to remember many things there has to be something that weaves through them that i can verbalize and that in itself implies i have to understand them.

you made your wrong conclusion about my comment and kept believing in this conclusion yourself as it it were true. you created your own monster to fight.

anyone who can review the comments will see this.

after lashing out, perhaps you are trying to save face by pretending to be calm and reasonable again, but you can't hide who you truly are.

you have a problem of taking words out of context and grossly misinterpreting what is implied in comments. what is dangerous is that you are using this grossly misinterpreted piece of information to start an argument against a premise nobody even made. you should be at least reprimanded for doing this and marring other people's reputations. but i guess you get some kind of pass so you keep doing this thing.

I made no wrong conclusions, and you aren't weaseling your way out of this.

In post 15, I mention that the moment you start using the word "memorize" to describe your approach for studying chess, everything else you say after that is useless, and in post 16, you yourself claim you have no way to describe what you need to do if it's not memorize, and claim that a new word has to be made up to describe it if it isn't memorize!

And here you go again talking about remembering things.  I don't remember.  I don't memorize.  I UNDERSTAND what I play.  I have gone thru the growing pains of realizing that memorizing does you nothing, nada, nil, zilch!

I can reel off the first 10 to 15 moves of any "normal" opening you name.  This excludes the really weird garbage.  Dragon, Alekhine, Caro-Kann, Taimanov, Breyer, Marshall Gambit, etc.  Doesn't matter.

I could not just reel off 25 moves of the French Winawer Poisoned Pawn blindly, but I look at a board, and proceed to face something like the following, I'll have zero trouble getting thru the first 25 moves:

There is no way to memorize all of this (and all of White's alternatives in the 20s).  It is all about understanding the position, and knowing that the Rook needs to get into play ASAP to defend the King.  White deviates?  You are still figuring out the same thing.  How to get the Rook into play!  Not "if this, then that, but if this, then that" - NO!  Every move from moves 25-onward is "How do I get the Rook into play and not get mated?" - Period, end of story!

Understand the problem and the goal - don't memorize the moves!

I memorized the eye chart at the doctors office.  I'm legally blind, but my vision is still 20/20 according to what i "saw" on the chart.

indeed. For all the advice, given in good faith, I happen to be one of the few who advocate memorization. Especially for those new to "studying " chess. Having a healthy memory is generally a good thing especially young. As you gain experience you will of course weed out what is useful to you (and only you), discard what you don't need and add what is uniquely your own (sounds familiar, I know heh). No one can truly tell you what is "good" or "bad" when you're beyond the basic opening principles stage. In a practical sense, memorization of lines n variations that has been distilled through the years is the way to go in my opinion. And these days there is alot of information. Stick to key lines that you initiate. Memorization n repetition is paramount. Until it is fully ingrained just like mating patterns, common positional-tactical combos & rudimentary endgame principles. Repetitions in key focused variations and mastering them is totally important. Then you can level up. Nobody ever told the Greats or current top players you can't do this or that, or you should study this or that because you're a certain level. It's just a game! I advocate memorization and repetition because that's how I started out, if its not relatable to you fine. But I know it's not "wrong". There shouldn't be such dogma attached to one's own training or learning method. We're all unique.

indeed. For example, as excellent as it is, TF's arguement is that one will not know what to do assuming of course that one doesn't have experience, just relied on memorization without studying other aspects of chess. Cool.

To make it that far on memorization alone is cool too, coupled with experience and basic skillsets one is confronted with the same problem everyone goes through! How is one's memory to be able to weave through this position spontaneously but has some ingrained knowledge prior to, as opposed to someone who has never studied the French Winawer compare? Yeah, he may have some understanding of some kind theme but the more experienced & practical players would at least say that you gotta know some lines by heart to engage

personally, I would never go into this position because when I was a 1. e4 player I memorised and practiced using the French Tarrasch over n over again. ✌🏽

but then again, I wasn't a casual chess fanatic; in my chess club 20 moves into the opening was "normal"...maybe some can relate but yeah it is hard work and we didn't have as many resources as today. Soo cool. I still advocate what I say but on the other hand, if you're just a casual player it's also cool not to memorize everything