Opening theory and engines are ruining the game.

But memorizing loads of unnecessary lines isn’t learning techniques and doing training. I’m all in favor for techniques and training, like tactics, positional understanding, and for training, say, analyzing games, maybe doing some puzzles, etc.

Anyone who disagrees with the majority is immediately a troll 💀

Wrong.

Everything else you said is also wrong, but if the 1st sentence consists of 6 words which are as wrong as can possibly be, I would just like to highlight that.

Chess is a game of calculation, evaluation, visualization, psychology, pattern memory, understanding stuff... I mean... If you get caught in the opening you don't have to learn theory - just learn to come back from worse positions I guess, no problem... I know plenty of 2100s who don't study theory and never did...

..aaaand unfollow thread

Cowardly enough to avoid any responses.

Fair enough, I misspoke. That was wrong. You do use calculations, and apply your knowledge in order to play chess. However, that wasn’t the point. You didn’t even bother to actually argue against my main point, you just said it was wrong.

Agreed. Perhaps, only the first few moves to understand your gameplan and to enter a position you are certainly familiar with, but it’s useless to shove theory down your throat.

How do you do that?

Well, really, I meant the ability to apply your knowledge of tactical and positional understanding to your games, as well as visualization and analyzation. So, that’s a start.

Practice your calculation and visualization. Always look for opportunities for tactical and positional application.

How is that working out for you?

Thanks! I'll try to practice. Hopefully, I can get to your level soon, and not get banned.

Don’t worry, you won’t get banned. You’ll only get banned if you cheat with an engine.

i agree that at low level memorising 20 move deep lines byheart is bad

everyone does

where i disagree is going on to say "dont play ruy"

what, so because an opening HAS 20 move deep lines doesnt mean you have to know those lines to play it

and face it, if someone wants to play ruy, by your own logic, they should be allowed to, as it works for them and they like it

I was simply referring to the dozens of lines presented in the opening. If you want to play 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5, that’s fine by me, but you’re not necessarily adopting the plans for it.

Unless they drop their dozens of lines of theory, of course.

Personally, I find it hard to believe that anyone below the rating of 2200 (OTB, so titled essentially) actually knows 20 moves of theory, or extensively studies any opening. Generally, most casual players only know 5 or so moves of theory (maybe more in sharp lines like the Alapin Sicilian (1. e4 c5 2. c3 Nf6 3. e5 Nd5 4. d4 cxd4 5.cxd4 Nc6 6.Nf3 d6 7.Bc4 Nb6 8.Bb3 etc etc), but certainly not more than that. I don't think opening theory or engines are ruining the game as far as casual players are concerned. No one at that level truly memorizes that much theory, as I've yet to come across such a player.

However, I do agree that preparation has gone a little crazy at the higher level, as exemplified in the World Championship. It is clear that both players are arriving at the board with 15-20 moves of prep, plus analysis of several grandmaster games to identify the correct plans and responses to use in their own game.

Additionally, some grandmasters are extremely well-versed in the endgame, which is of course heavily studied. However, in the case of endgames, not every endgame is going to look exactly alike. What separates a grandmaster from a casual player is their technique in employing their hours of practice and study of similar endgames. I wouldn't say that engines/tablebases can be a substitute for endgame technique in a real game because there are simply too many possible endgames.

yes

someone reasonable, but with an anti theory pov

finally

Theory is not harmful to your long-term chess improvement, because theory is never going to be a substitute for tactical understanding, endgame technique, forming plans, etc etc. After the opening stage of the game, it is important to realize that most intermediate players don't understand the types of positions that result from an opening, and are unable to form a proper plan in the middlegame, thus leading to their downfall to a more positionally strong opponent. Since most intermediate players do not really study openings (myself included), atleast to the level of a titled player, it is not accurate to describe opening theory as a "get rich quick" scheme, as it takes much more skill and practice to employ the opening adeptly. Of course, this isn't even considering the fact that many intermediate player's understanding of opening theory lasts approximately 5 moves.

The amount of bafflingly stupid things that have been said in this thread is actually mind boggling

The only way studying theory is bad is when you focus too much on it and neglect other aspects. You won’t really get better, and you might get a bit worse if you also just neglect playing to study theory, but knowledge of some amount or theory is essentially required to play. It’s not a requirement for pure beginners, but the higher you climb up the rating ladder, the more theory you’ll HAVE to know in order to succeed. It’s not the only thing you need to know, but it sure as hell is important. You don’t need to study a fifty-move line of theory in the Ruy Lopez as a 1000, but knowing some lines in some openings up to a certain point (no one said studying theory meant studying a single line into a forced draw anyway), maybe 8 or 10 moves can be really useful, especially for more aggressive or trappy openings. You know about the 20 40 40 rule in chess study? That nice big ol 20 stuck at the front means that 20% of your study should go towards openings. It’s stupid to neglect opening theory and stupid to hyperfocus on it.

I'd say that chess theory is comparable to learning and practice sweeps or passes, in Jiu-Jitsu.

Or learning and practicing a palm-heel strike in Karate.

Or learning and practicing a roundhouse kick in Taekwondo.

These are well-established martial art techniques that have been shown to be efficient for their individual purposes - much like specific lines of opening theory, in chess.

After enough repetition and practice, they move from the realm of conscious thought into the realm of intuitive skill. They can be adapted or adjusted as needed, to fit the current needs of the situation.

Learning theory (not simply memorizing theory, but actually learning the ideas and the logic behind each move) can enable a player to recognize ideas on the board. Not just moves - but ideas.

What ideas are your opponents trying for? Are these known approaches, or something out of the ordinary? How best can these be countered?

Yes, I agree that players shouldn't feel reliant on engines to tell them how to play. I don't think you'll find many strong players who use engines as a crutch. Many simply use the engine as a tool, to help their own understanding - then they abandon the tool once they no longer need it.

Is it wrong for a carpenter to use tape measures and straight edges, to improve the quality of their final product ...?

This is precisely the point that I made in my previous comment. Theory is never going to be a substitute for positional understanding, tactical prowess, or endgame technique. It is simply another tool in the tool box, one that is used more and more as a player's skill level approaches the grandmaster level.

I don't consider opening theory prohibitive; in fact, I believe in the opposite.

Certain positions that arise, from the king's indian defense, can actually be beneficial to a player's overall chess understanding, as the player learns about certain ideas, such as moving the knight out of the way in order to play the f5-pawn break. This teaches how incredibly important pawn breaks are in those types of positions, and can help the player see similar pawn breaks in other openings with similar pawn structures.

Thus, learning the positional ideas in many openings could prove fruitful for the player's overall improvement, and learning the plans that grandmasters employ in their games can be helpful for formulating their own plans in their own games.