Opening theory and engines are ruining the game.

A glass of Scotch to relax, and then later some nice French wine with dinner?

wtf

sampson got muted

Of course at your level theory is not usefull.

Im a 2000+ elo player and even so I never dedicated time to study any openings but the knowledge I got from openings and defenses is from experience. As example I play the reti and at higher level is necessary to know your opening good, but I ve obtained that knowlede by playing too and I ve only read 1 book in my life.

At your level theory does not matter, but yes when you reach 2000, 2100 elo+ it start to be important. And even so GM are not just memory they have an amazing intuition better than yours and mine and they also of course have amazing knowledge of theory. It is never going to be a problem for standar people.

I don't know how the OP is ever able to sleep,given the number of goats going clippy-cloppity on the bridge o'er his head.

If that's true, and it probably is, then at some point it probably shouldn't be called theory.

I think maybe 100 years ago it was theory. Now it's a sure thing.

It's like the guy getting on to the freeway while swerving and talking on his cell phone. It used to be theory on if he would even look before merging. Now it's sure thing he wont.

The only thing keeping my rating afloat is theory. I won't listen to your philosophy till I get my tactics straight.

I usually invent my openings to make all the theory my opponents learned backfire and they don’t know what to do and I win easily.

I love how this guy's a 900 that has played 12 games on this account, and yet is criticizing the greatest chess players of all time, claiming that he in his 900 elo uses more intuition than them. Some people are just beyond me.

You are an 800. If you win easily why is your rating so low. No one without a title should be making their own openings, much less a beginner.

Theory isn’t ruining the game. Grandmasters learn theory because they know how to play the game. We learn theory because we can’t. In the end, learning (memorizing) theory is a choice, and if you can still play well without much theory, it isn’t ruining anything.

That’s a bad habit, learn your positional ideas and tactics and drop excessive theory. Use only the first few moves to get an idea of your opening, which you already do considering you study loads of theory.

Trust me, your rating should spike up like crazy once you refine your actual chess skill.

Ok then, I should just play the queens gambit. If my rating drops drastically, Dibs on you.

Most of their games are loads of opening theory and an endgame, just look at the Najdorf Sicilian, the Ruy Lopez, and the Grunfeld, very popular GM openings. Compare the games of a GM’s and a beginner’s and you’ll see that the beginner will start using his raw brain to make moves much earlier. Of course, I’m not saying they’re bad players, they’re definitely better than me, only that they’re depending a lot of their game on theory.

My main point is that people are now encouraging beginners and intermediates to adopt GM-level opening theory which is BS. Why are you working as a chef if you can’t even operate a stove? The reason a lot of beginners can’t get past their level is because they know nothing about chess and a lot about theory. All I’m saying is that this habit needs to stop.

I see your point. If thats all your saying thats fine but I you ahve to remember that theory is built off of people knowing about chess so don't forget that.

Fair point, but opening theory isn’t helpful if you don’t understand the moves. Is an alphabet useful when you don’t know how to read?

there is 0 problem with opening theory. if you were to remove all knowledge of the opening to everyone, then what would happen is that people would start experimenting and trying to find the best openings all over agian by trial and error. (pretend computers dont exist) opening theory exists so that the best moves are documented for people to play that opening correctly. without documentation people would just play hundreds or thousands of games using a bunch of random openings untill they were able to come to the conclusion that the masters came up with

However, computers have completely ruined chess. most GM games before the early/mid 2000s were typically much more interesting, attacking, and mistake filled. and seeing their oppoment punish the mistake with a beautiful combination is what was amazing. nowadays most GMs have 30 moves of computer prep (that typically goes into an endgame) so they can play the endgame perfectly too. why do you think most GMs accuracy's are near perfect? all GM games are filled with computer prep and computer openings and are no longer fun or interesting to watch. the only thing keeping chess alive are the GMs playing slightly dubious lines in order to get you out of prep and then you might actually see a entertaining game.

Actually i do understand the moves.

Bro you actually lowkey made me lose 3 games already

this is why I play the Polish. the middle game positions are unique.