How Important Is Memorizing All This Crap?

I wouldnt  consider anti-sicilians early deviations.

gchess33 wrote:

"... Unless you're playing the Sicilian, then most of the people I play use early deviations."

Perhaps that can be used as a rough guide of how much to read in an opening book. I think that most opening books are something of a compromise between exposition and reference material. The idea is for the reader to decide how much is appropriate to examine. Before buying, it is perhaps worthwhile to think about whether one's interest is primarily exposition or reference. I often suggest going to a publisher's site and trying to find an available sample from a book in order to get an idea about the sort of content that is emphasized.

I agree with this wisdom, at least with specific, highly tactical Sicilians as the Najdorf, and other highly tactical openings like the Budapest Gambit, King's Gambit, and maybe the King's Indian Defense.

I sometimes post my list of what I consider minimal memorization to know at the club level. If you want I'll post that list again here. Below is a great book, by the way:

----------

(p. 5)

Introduction

Did you ever see a chess master play twenty games at once? Have you won-

dered at (and perhaps envied) his confidence and ease as he stops for a few

seconds at each board, gives the position on it a moment's consideration, and

then casually makes a move?

   Does he move quickly because he knows dozens of openings with hun-

dreds of variations by heart? Hardly, because most of the games in such exhi-

bitions take original turns which are not to be found in the books. Does he

analyse every conceivable combination of moves at lightning speed? Or does

he count on some infallible instinct to guide him through the strangest posi-

tions? If so, he would have to analyse faster than a computer or rely on being

inspired a thousand times in an evening.

   How does he do it? If we could follow his thought processes, if we could

persuade him to tell us the meaning of each move as he makes it, we might

learn the answer.

   In this book we persuade him. We find out from the master the purpose of

every single move he makes in the course of a game. We follow the ideas, the

methods, the very thoughts of a master as he outlines them in simple detail.

We learn the inner workings of his mind, and thus acquire the knowledge--

yes, the instinct--for recognizing good moves and rejecting inferior ones.

   To acquire this instinct it is not necessary to memorize countless opening

variations, or to burden your brain with lists of formulae and principles. True,

there are principles that govern proper procedure, and applying them will

help you build up strong, sound, winning positions. But you will familiarize

yourself with them painlessly--not by rote but by seeing their effect in the

progress of a game.

Sounds like a book I would want to read.

Everyone should read Logical Chess Move by Move. Specially if you are a beginner/amateur.

   If your a chess player its not important. If your dealing with altzheimer's it could be a problem.

@Sqod wrote :

" Did you ever see a chess master play twenty games at once? Have you        wondered at (and perhaps envied) his confidence and ease as he stops for a few seconds at each board, gives the position on it a moment's consideration, and then casually makes a move? "

It seems extraordinary.But he/she must be enjoyed their game.

https://web.archive.org/web/20140708104437/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/logichess.pdf

Indeed.

It's highly unlikely you'll get far if you don't take some of this "crap" seriously. Endgame tactics, Positional strategy, Opening lines. It's worth memorizing. Not to mention Mating attacks. Certain combos.

Don't be swayed by those with titles that say memorization isn't important. If you're like me, you have to work. Harder in fact. Than those with natural talent and resources. 

It naturally entails absorbing every bit as you can.

"Understanding" as some would put it, means simply that every scrap of information you've harbored you have put it to good use. "Instinct" does not come without prior information. Those that have been memorized and collected along the way. Through books, studying or from experience.

Absorb what is useful

Discard what is useless

Add only what is uniquely your own

~Bruce Lee

Last thing I could say, especially to those hypocritical people that say memorization isn't key to learning chess as a whole....

It really isn't all that important what you memorize, as the quality of what you do.

In a tournament game, when the clock is ticking...any semblance of a line that can win the game you had memorized just casually perusing a Tal miniature, a tactic or strategy that "stuck" when otherwise somebody told you it was useless, but helped you win.

To me, that negates any negative talk about memorization in Chess.

The reason some players can remember their games is because there were reasons for each move. When i was playing 50 games at once remembering the moves of those games was easy as there were reasons for each move.

When playing simultaneous against a large group of players--they often deviate from opening theory early--very often with a bad move--and you can exploit the bad move and make the rest of the game easy.

i was diagnosed with alzheimer's 12 years ago and still going strong.

Its tough!

 Heh. It is tough, Neha.

But then again.. Anything worth doing isn't easy. Maybe it's easy to say, "I want to save the World!"

Alas, it comes down to the little things. Maybe I was harsh in saying, "hypocrites".

It's just it is undeniable, to me, that improving doesn't involve absorbing knowledge. Or, in this discussion...memorization.

Some would advocate not learning mainlines.

Why not? Databases or Opening Explorer gives lines, alternatives, sidelines encompassing all options.

It is totally hypocritical to say that a beginner should not be playing these lines, much less memorizing them and yet also say at the same time they don't "understand" them anyway?

What would be the point of trying to understand lines that are distilled from generation to generation then?

The main point is that these lines are mainlines for a reason. Each move has been scrutinized over the decades by GM's, theorists. 

Why the hell not, put them to heart?

Actually any database has a whole lot of errors. So, except maybe for the very first 3 or 4 moves--you may be memorizing bad lines.

True. But not likely. Ponz, as a World renowned author of Opening authority as yourself, have built a foundation of searching for truth in variations. Revamping them, innovating. You have lent your expertise, knowledge...your reputation to many lines now known as "mainline".

I cannot find any reason that any beginner would not use theory of the Ponziani's Opening without trusting in the distilled knowledge.

A beginner has everything to gain. And typically, nothing to lose. 

Self-exploration, in of itself, is fundamental.

To me.

When playing a competitive game, sometimes "crap" espoused, albeit non-revealing at the time, often comes in handy at the right time. Like a Father's or Uncle's advice. It makes sense at a time when the chips are down. Like, "oh ye-aah".

I"m just looking to increase my understanding of the game at this point and I'll never be good at remembering things, although this talent can no doubt be useful I'm sure.  I wouldn't say that I've gotten nothing from this KID course, but I'd say most of the stuff isn't really that intuitive, some of it is and I have a little better idea of the opening but not that much, and this has been a little discouraging, and that prompted me to rant a little on here.

On the other hand, at this point in my development I'd say that working on the opening is something I need to be spending more time on, because I get to the point where I have a shortage of ideas past the first opening moves, I get my pieces developed and now what?  So I do have to put in the time with this I would say.  I look to capitalize on the mistakes of my opponents and also look to use some simple ideas but if that's not happening I can get lost as far as what to do.

The concern is getting myself into positions where the opponent understands the positions better early on leading to my falling into too much of a disadvantage.  I'm not out to learn any moves here really, but why certain moves are made, and the instructional material seems to focus too much on the moves and not enough on the why I would say, at least the stuff I've been exposed to so far.

So it is what it is, I am looking to become a good player one day, and I at least have a good idea of how much there is to learn to get there, but with some of this opening stuff it seemed like this aspect of the game may be way out of reach ever, if it requires memorization.  After reading all of these comments I feel better about all this at least, especially when it comes to working through the material and just looking to grab what I can.  So thanks goes out to those who have contributed their thoughts here