Opening theory and engines are ruining the game.

you know anyone can do math with the help of a calculator.

It might take a little longer to recover, but you will if you drop your 20 lines of theory. It’s similar, but not the exact same to tobacco and alcohol.

Until they enter a real-world problem where they can’t just use a calculator. Then they won’t even know where to start.

I also heard that studying English is akin to chopping of both of your legs and being crippled for the rest of your life, and that dedicating your time to the culinary arts is like ramming your head into a concrete wall and giving yourself irreversible brain damage

Well, I don´t use engines and can barely remember the names of the most common openings, let alone memorize different lines, so to me the game is as mystifying and wonderful as ever. I can´t see this change in my lifetime.

I’ve checked other threads, you carefully select the wrong opinions and make a radical statement of them. I’m not dumb enough to allow you to anger me.

Yes. You’re basically repeating my point. I study opening theory for a small amount of time just to be able to get into the positions my openings offer me, and play off of their plans and tactical and positional understanding in order to get an advantage.

It’s good that you appreciate the way chess is played in its nature. Chess is supposed to be fun.

I usually play OTB. I’m, of course, not a master by any means, but after the month-long break I took, I’m starting off well. In my last game on the site, I got an accuracy of 90% while I used to get loads of 70%’s to 80%’s, OTB and chess.com alike. I plan to play more on the site.

the artist of chess, that is my exact point. that is also the reason why I don't care if someone uses a engine against me while playing. they are only hindering their own development and forcing me to play to the best of my ability. No, I don't like losing but I also know these games don't really count. this is not FIDE or USCF.

oh uh ok i just thought you worded it a little weirdly

The effects that engines have had on GM level play is negligible. Theory has been around for multiple centuries, there hasn’t been a massive development in theoretical knowledge since the advent of the engine, and deep theoretical draws such as the Marshall Attack and Botvinnik Semi-Slav predate the engine.

As for amateurs, it only affects their chess if they let it. If a beginner uses an engine and chooses the top move in every position because it’s the top move, there will be no progress made. If a beginner uses an engine to vet a line and make sure it isn’t unsound, pairs it with a database to see what’s common as well, then analyzes the line to see why it’s good, as well as continuing to learn middlegames and endgames, then they may make progress faster than they would have without the engine.

There is always Chess960 to play...it's about half of my daily games.

These days if one wants to become a titled player, opening theory is going to be part of getting a title. An OTB player who had a 2100 rating told me that if he faced a FM and if the FM has prepared with opening study, he generally wouldn't stand a chance.

tl;dr

i just have a few questions

how does engine use affect the skill of prodigies? if they used an engine for their opening, so what? its the opening its the first few moves of the game, they battle out in the middlegame.

why would gothamchess be a "scumbag" for reccomending opening theory? im not understanding, does studying openings make you lose braincells or something???

also no, most engine moves actually have principles they follow. developing, attacking. "oh but what about the sicili-" we dont talk about the sicillian. play the opening you want goddamit. also why does it matter if they follow principles, play your opening moves and do your principles at the end of your theory, its that simple. all you need to not get a disadvantage in the opening because your opponent studied a opening and you proceeded to not study any. plus we get to play goofy ahh variations like the Kan variation cause of this, because we know its not bad af.

no, the beauty was not coming from their openings being "bad", it was them making that blunder you talk about. what happened is gm's got better. and no who would even study 70 moves of engines lines to go the opening? i can't even study 10 moves before deciding "too many variations". ik gm's are more capable but at most they would prob remember a lot more, but no theres no "forced draw from the opening". the middlegame exists, yknow? still plenty of oppurtunity.

ah yes, we should all give up our opening theory because you said so. nobody takes months to study, I only took 20 minutes for studying the Grunfeld, and because there was this huge af description of what black should play on the left, and stockfish SHOWS why the moves are played when you go through the lines.

why would openings be a "bad habit", i just dont understand, does studying openings just make you worse at chess?

lets suppose that every gm ever dropped their opening because of this. they wiped it from their brain, if its possible. guess what? the opening is still gonna be relatively equal, they're just good enough. i play chess960 and i have to make up my own openings, and am relatively successful in the majority of my games.

Opening theory and engines haven’t “ruined” the game. Sure, grandmasters memorize tons of theory and endgame techniques, but they are GRANDMASTERS. They memorize all of that as they are the best chess players in the world, so they will do anything to get better. Since they already have built up the intuition for coming up with plans in the opening and middlegame, the theory doesn’t mess them up. All of these long opening lines are just there because people want to have specific ways to start out the game that give the biggest advantage, if you know what you’re doing. Key words: if you know what you’re doing. Sure, these points would make sense if we didn’t know the standard game plans in those positions, but we do. If we didn’t, then you would be right, as you would get an advantage, but you wouldn’t be able to use it, effectively rendering all of the time spent learning theory useless. However, these massive bodies of opening theory actually have points in the positions, so we know what to do. This makes the theory actually helpful, as we can get into positions we are more comfortable with, and know what to do if they play other moves than normal, like g6 in the Italian, or Qf6 in the Ruy, etc. To summarize, grandmasters use opening theory, endgame techniques, as well as the ideas in all of the positions to get a slight competitive edge, as they are all competing to be the best in the world. It’s like being a top sprinter, and wearing the newest and best running shoes to go a bit faster.

Also, a similar thing can be applied to intermediate and beginner players. In my opinion, intermediate and beginner players should know a few moves of opening theory, mainly so they don’t accidentally get a completely lost position in the opening. However, as many people have said, it is much better to learn tactics and gain more positional intuition than to waste your time on learning 20+ moves of theory. Unless you’re a grandmaster, you only need to know a few moves of theory, just come up with the rest as you go. As the original poster has stated, you should know how to play in unfamiliar positions, as if you only know how to play in very specific theoretical positions, chances are that your opponent will play a bad move that wasn’t taught in the opening course you got, as they expected you to be a 2500 who knows how to punish that move, and instead of doing that, you miss the point that their move had and lose the game. Practicing your positional intuition is much more important than learning openings, as GothamChess has said, saying that you could buy a course, get a +5 position in the opening, then hang mate in one because you don’t know what you’re doing. Still, I remain adamant that lower-rated players should know a little bit of opening theory.

I also feel like lower-rated players should learn a bit about endgame technique. Not to the extent at which grandmasters study them, but just to know the main ways to improve at their intuitive endgame skills. For example, one of the most important things, keeping away the opponent’s king by using opposition, or winning a rook and pawn vs rook endgame by slowly edging up the board and preventing all defensive opportunities. I don’t care for all the Lucena or Philidor or Whatever-his-name-was positions. You don’t need them until a much higher rung on the rating ladder. All you need is some good intuition (built up with practice) and some knowledge of techniques.

In conclusion, I feel that beginners should know some opening theory. But only some. Too much can mess you up, as you’re probably not even going to get all the main lines anyways. Instead, you should learn a few lines of theory, but focus mainly on the ideas in the positions, and what you game plan should be. In the long run, better intuition is going to help you more than 50 moves of theory in some random opening. I feel this thread has gone too far, with people saying that it is awful to learn theory and you should never play openings. The game has not been “ruined” by theory, in fact I fell it has been enriched. It’s fine if you don’t agree with what I think, this is just my opinion on the subject. Thank you.

*feel it has been enriched

Hdjdkdj

At the elite level, the use of opening ballots would reduce the influence of engine lines.

I started a thread about it some time ago. It's here:

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/how-about-opening-ballots

This thread is not that much about the theory at the elite level, it’s that beginners are trying to learn complicated variations, when they really should be studying tactics and positional play.