Just memorizing moves without any understanding of why they are played is like being given the answers to a test. Yes you'll get 100% but you didn't learn anything.
Or as I also like to say. You can memorize the 10 best books on how to perform open heart surgery, but that doesn't mean you're qualified to perform the surgery.
But at the end of the day. Its choice. Whatever makes the game fun for someone.
It is all about UNDERSTANDING. Contrary to what post 2 says, playing what you find "fun", you need to understand the position. Can you identify the targets or weaknesses. Do you have any idea what your opponent is doing. When you look at a game in said opening, can you put in words why the move played was played?
Memorizing doesn't do you bleep. Here are just some of the openings I can spit out moves:
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 Ne7 5 a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 c5 7.Qg4 Qc7 8.Qxg7 Rg8 9.Qxh7 cxd4 10.Ne2 Nbc6 11.f4 dxc3 12.Qd3 d4 13.Nxd4 Nxd4 14.Qxd4 Bd7 15.Rg1 Nf5 16.Qf2 Qc6 17.Bd3 Qd5 18.Be3 Nxe3 19.Qxe3 Rxg2 20.Rxg2 Qxg2 21.Be4 Qxh2 22.Bxc6+ bxc6 etc
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.d4 d5 6.Bd3 Nc6 7.O-O Be7 8.c4 Nb4 9.Be2 O-O 10.Nc3 Bf5 11.a3 Nxc3 12.bxc3 Nc6 13.Re1 Re8 14.cxd5 Qxd5 15.Bf4 Rac8 etc
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nxc3 6.bxc3 c5 7.Bc4 Bg7 8.Ne2 O-O 9.Be3 Nc6 10.O-O Bg4 11.f3 Na5 12.Bxf7+ etc.
Now, do you know how the game follows for BOTH SIDES? If so, you understand it. If you don't, you just memorized it, and you are screwed afterwards. I UNDERSTAND the first 2. The third makes no sense to me. So just because I can spew 12 moves of the Seville variation of the Grunfeld means nothing. I have no clue what to do next, so playing the Grunfeld from either side for me would be stupid. The French and Petroff (and Dutch and Trompowski and Neo-London) make sense and hence why that is my repertoire. NOT the Grunfeld!
It is all about UNDERSTANDING. Contrary to what post 2 says, playing what you find "fun", you need to understand the position. Can you identify the targets or weaknesses. Do you have any idea what your opponent is doing. When you look at a game in said opening, can you put in words why the move played was played?
Memorizing doesn't do you bleep. Here are just some of the openings I can spit out moves:
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 Ne7 5 a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 c5 7.Qg4 Qc7 8.Qxg7 Rg8 9.Qxh7 cxd4 10.Ne2 Nbc6 11.f4 dxc3 12.Qd3 d4 13.Nxd4 Nxd4 14.Qxd4 Bd7 15.Rg1 Nf5 16.Qf2 Qc6 17.Bd3 Qd5 18.Be3 Nxe3 19.Qxe3 Rxg2 20.Rxg2 Qxg2 21.Be4 Qxh2 22.Bxc6+ bxc6 etc
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.d4 d5 6.Bd3 Nc6 7.O-O Be7 8.c4 Nb4 9.Be2 O-O 10.Nc3 Bf5 11.a3 Nxc3 12.bxc3 Nc6 13.Re1 Re8 14.cxd5 Qxd5 15.Bf4 Rac8 etc
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nxc3 6.bxc3 c5 7.Bc4 Bg7 8.Ne2 O-O 9.Be3 Nc6 10.O-O Bg4 11.f3 Na5 12.Bxf7+ etc.
Now, do you know how the game follows for BOTH SIDES? If so, you understand it. If you don't, you just memorized it, and you are screwed afterwards. I UNDERSTAND the first 2. The third makes no sense to me. So just because I can spew 12 moves of the Seville variation of the Grunfeld means nothing. I have no clue what to do next, so playing the Grunfeld from either side for me would be stupid. The French and Petroff (and Dutch and Trompowski and Neo-London) make sense and hence why that is my repertoire. NOT the Grunfeld!
What I meant by fun is if memorizing moves makes the game fun for someone then so be it.
It is all about UNDERSTANDING. Contrary to what post 2 says, playing what you find "fun", you need to understand the position. Can you identify the targets or weaknesses. Do you have any idea what your opponent is doing. When you look at a game in said opening, can you put in words why the move played was played?
Memorizing doesn't do you bleep. Here are just some of the openings I can spit out moves:
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 Ne7 5 a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 c5 7.Qg4 Qc7 8.Qxg7 Rg8 9.Qxh7 cxd4 10.Ne2 Nbc6 11.f4 dxc3 12.Qd3 d4 13.Nxd4 Nxd4 14.Qxd4 Bd7 15.Rg1 Nf5 16.Qf2 Qc6 17.Bd3 Qd5 18.Be3 Nxe3 19.Qxe3 Rxg2 20.Rxg2 Qxg2 21.Be4 Qxh2 22.Bxc6+ bxc6 etc
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.d4 d5 6.Bd3 Nc6 7.O-O Be7 8.c4 Nb4 9.Be2 O-O 10.Nc3 Bf5 11.a3 Nxc3 12.bxc3 Nc6 13.Re1 Re8 14.cxd5 Qxd5 15.Bf4 Rac8 etc
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nxc3 6.bxc3 c5 7.Bc4 Bg7 8.Ne2 O-O 9.Be3 Nc6 10.O-O Bg4 11.f3 Na5 12.Bxf7+ etc.
Now, do you know how the game follows for BOTH SIDES? If so, you understand it. If you don't, you just memorized it, and you are screwed afterwards. I UNDERSTAND the first 2. The third makes no sense to me. So just because I can spew 12 moves of the Seville variation of the Grunfeld means nothing. I have no clue what to do next, so playing the Grunfeld from either side for me would be stupid. The French and Petroff (and Dutch and Trompowski and Neo-London) make sense and hence why that is my repertoire. NOT the Grunfeld!
What I meant by fun is if memorizing moves makes the game fun for someone then so be it.
But even if you find memorizing instead of understand "fun", you WILL fail that way.
Take a game I played yesterday over the board. I don't recall the GM's name (I know her first name is Elisabeth (yes, with an S, not a Z), but she has done videos for Chessbase on the Jobava Attack and the Neo-London. The Neo-London is 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.c3. The point is to avoid the Qb6 lines and to make the Bf5 lines inferior (3...Bf5 4.Qb3!). But against the main line, she recommends transposing (1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.c3 e6 4.Bf4 Bd6 5.e3 c5 6.Nbd2 O-O 7.Bd3 Nc6 8.Bg3 b6 9.e4 Be7 10.e5 Nh5 11.Ng5 Bxg5 12.Qxh5 g6).
Well, yesterday, I played 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 and faced 2...e6. The main point behind 3.c3 is to make the ...Bf5 lines bad and to counter ...Qb6. Well, the Bishop can no longer go to f5, and if you act like a robot and play c3, you don't understand it. You just memorized. Instead, I played 3.Bf4. 3.c3 Bd6 and now Bf4 isn't even possible. She played 3...Bd6, I played 4.e3, and then she played the inferior 4...f5 (4...Nf6 or 4...Bxf4 or 4...c5 is better) and I (white) won in 36 moves.
Understanding the opening is what is important, regardless of what you find fun. Just memorizing the video would fail you.
It is all about UNDERSTANDING. Contrary to what post 2 says, playing what you find "fun", you need to understand the position. Can you identify the targets or weaknesses. Do you have any idea what your opponent is doing. When you look at a game in said opening, can you put in words why the move played was played?
Memorizing doesn't do you bleep. Here are just some of the openings I can spit out moves:
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 Ne7 5 a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 c5 7.Qg4 Qc7 8.Qxg7 Rg8 9.Qxh7 cxd4 10.Ne2 Nbc6 11.f4 dxc3 12.Qd3 d4 13.Nxd4 Nxd4 14.Qxd4 Bd7 15.Rg1 Nf5 16.Qf2 Qc6 17.Bd3 Qd5 18.Be3 Nxe3 19.Qxe3 Rxg2 20.Rxg2 Qxg2 21.Be4 Qxh2 22.Bxc6+ bxc6 etc
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.d4 d5 6.Bd3 Nc6 7.O-O Be7 8.c4 Nb4 9.Be2 O-O 10.Nc3 Bf5 11.a3 Nxc3 12.bxc3 Nc6 13.Re1 Re8 14.cxd5 Qxd5 15.Bf4 Rac8 etc
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nxc3 6.bxc3 c5 7.Bc4 Bg7 8.Ne2 O-O 9.Be3 Nc6 10.O-O Bg4 11.f3 Na5 12.Bxf7+ etc.
Now, do you know how the game follows for BOTH SIDES? If so, you understand it. If you don't, you just memorized it, and you are screwed afterwards. I UNDERSTAND the first 2. The third makes no sense to me. So just because I can spew 12 moves of the Seville variation of the Grunfeld means nothing. I have no clue what to do next, so playing the Grunfeld from either side for me would be stupid. The French and Petroff (and Dutch and Trompowski and Neo-London) make sense and hence why that is my repertoire. NOT the Grunfeld!
What I meant by fun is if memorizing moves makes the game fun for someone then so be it.
But even if you find memorizing instead of understand "fun", you WILL fail that way.
Take a game I played yesterday over the board. I don't recall the GM's name (I know her first name is Elisabeth (yes, with an S, not a Z), but she has done videos for Chessbase on the Jobava Attack and the Neo-London. The Neo-London is 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.c3. The point is to avoid the Qb6 lines and to make the Bf5 lines inferior (3...Bf5 4.Qb3!). But against the main line, she recommends transposing (1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.c3 e6 4.Bf4 Bd6 5.e3 c5 6.Nbd2 O-O 7.Bd3 Nc6 8.Bg3 b6 9.e4 Be7 10.e5 Nh5 11.Ng5 Bxg5 12.Qxh5 g6).
Well, yesterday, I played 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 and faced 2...e6. The main point behind 3.c3 is to make the ...Bf5 lines bad and to counter ...Qb6. Well, the Bishop can no longer go to f5, and if you act like a robot and play c3, you don't understand it. You just memorized. Instead, I played 3.Bf4. 3.c3 Bd6 and now Bf4 isn't even possible. She played 3...Bd6, I played 4.e3, and then she played the inferior 4...f5 (4...Nf6 or 4...Bxf4 or 4...c5 is better) and I (white) won in 36 moves.
Understanding the opening is what is important, regardless of what you find fun. Just memorizing the video would fail you.
Completely agree with you. I was just saying that if someone enjoys memorizing moves and that makes the game fun for them then so be it. Just dont expect to improve much if at all.
woow
theres memorizing and then there is memorizing. Sometimes, in some critical lines or very sharp openings, you have to retain in your nogging what you must play , but fortunately, most opening moves become book because they make sense, so the line between learning and memorizing isnt so clear.
there is no harm in memorizing lines provided that is not interfering with your learning function. ITs when memory replaces knowledge that you get in trouble. Sometimes though, you may want to avoid trying to memorize lines above your paygrade of underestanding. e.g a 900 trying to learn the intricacies of the grunfeld is just madness.
theres memorizing and then there is memorizing. Sometimes, in some critical lines or very sharp openings, you have to retain in your nogging what you must play , but fortunately, most opening moves become book because they make sense, so the line between learning and memorizing isnt so clear.
there is no harm in memorizing lines provided that is not interfering with your learning function. ITs when memory replaces knowledge that you get in trouble. Sometimes though, you may want to avoid trying to memorize lines above your paygrade of underestanding. a 900 trying to learn the intricacies of the grunfeld is just madness.
And there is memoizing, the idea of storing computed values in dynamic programming to save time. Maybe you should memoize pawn structures, so you don't have to assess them every time.
Claude Bloodgood definitely did a lot of memoizing to get to 2789 USCF in prison.
Memorization without understanding is worthless.
consider this. Suppose I let you start the game at move 10. You can have a position that Magnus played. Will that make you any better? No. If you are rated 1000, you will make 1000-type errors. If we rate your games, you will still be rated 1000.
aim for understanding. What are the plans of an opening? The themes? The weak and strong squares? The key pawn advances? Being able to answer these questions is better than memorizing the moves. If you can answer these wuestions, you will be able to figure out the right moves!
the line between learning and memorizing isnt so clear.
Strongly agree with this.
Memorization without understanding is worthless.
Slightly disagree with this. In the general case it is correct. But not in the initial case (*). If you know zero, then the first bit(s) of knowledge can be usefully learned by memorization. After that you should try to link up new bits of knowledge with the existing bits, and work with the linkages to create understanding. This is why memorizing dates is helpful for understanding history -- cause and effect is highly dependent on proximity and order of the dates of events. Similarly with chess openings, you can't relate a new bit to a previous bit if you don't remember any details of the first bit. Of course if you spend all your time on stuffing bits into your brain and no time at all on linkages, then you will get nowhere fast.
(*) Initial case can be relative as well. You may know everything about your first opening and nothing about your second. If the openings are too different then some memorization of the new second opening may be needed, at least at first.
I think they are not mutually exclusive. How about spending time on strategy, tactics, and endgames that arise from games that began with the opening you want to learn?
theres memorizing and then there is memorizing. Sometimes, in some critical lines or very sharp openings, you have to retain in your nogging what you must play , but fortunately, most opening moves become book because they make sense, so the line between learning and memorizing isnt so clear.
there is no harm in memorizing lines provided that is not interfering with your learning function. ITs when memory replaces knowledge that you get in trouble. Sometimes though, you may want to avoid trying to memorize lines above your paygrade of underestanding. a 900 trying to learn the intricacies of the grunfeld is just madness.
And there is memoizing, the idea of storing computed values in dynamic programming to save time. Maybe you should memoize pawn structures, so you don't have to assess them every time.
Claude Bloodgood definitely did a lot of memoizing to get to 2789 USCF in prison.
are you like bloodgood's long lost son or something? you seem positively obsessed with the fellow.
sometimes you also have to make due with compromises. I have greatly expanded my repertoire due to the fact im getting opponents that are too prepared for my comfort (i often have to study my own opening lines up to two hours in an advance before a round to not be caught in a 15 move surprise) but because i already know my pet lines very deeply, i must seriously consider what else to add without being too taxing on my memory. I tend to prefer offbeat lines and im not an eval bar zealot so i tend to choose lines that emphasize concepts over precise continuations but i still learn these at a deeper level than your average lazy club player.
I have added light theory lines of the french (3.nc3 nc6!?) as well as the drawish rubinstein, zurich nimzo indian and intuitive bogo-indian lines , old indian, and exchange philidor . been planning to add early d6 lines of the italian and ruy lopez and will add the o'kelly sicilian soon. All these openings allow me to keep my pet lines and still keep my opponents guessing on what i will play without requiring ginormous amount of theory for everything i play.
moral of the story, know your limitations, preferences and capabilities when creating your opening book. Trying to play like GM X or Y and forgetting what is played on sideline C on move 17 will win you no games.
For example:
• Some players can recite 15–20 moves of a Sicilian variation but struggle once “the book” ends.
• Others stick to simple systems like the London, but they actually understand the ideas better.
What do you think? Should we prioritize openings, or should we spend more time on strategy, tactics, and endgames?