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?
Actually i do understand the moves.
Do you? I hear everyone say they understand the moves yet they have no idea why they’re playing them. Let’s say you were given the choice between theory and some other reasonable move, and you don’t know which one is theory. You can absolutely guarantee that you’ll chose the theory? You need to carefully analyze every single move in your 30-move deep singular line of the Najdorf Sicilian and completely understand why you’re playing those moves like they’re part of your own mind. Let’s say, the French. In the Advance, you play c5. I would play that. I understand why people play that. I understand it carries out a counterattacking plan and sets the course for the rest of the game as a battle between the center.
If you’re a genius, okay. Play your Najdorf which you understand like kindergarten-level math. If you’re not, do some revision and try to learn from the theory instead of just memorizing them. Basically, treat theory like your own move, something you can make up using your own positional and tactical knowledge.
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.
I completely agree with the second part, but, of course, I disagree. Firstly, chess players are dedicating all of their time and effort into opening theory even though they don’t even know positional or tactical basics, meaning they don’t know what the hell they’re playing or why they’re playing it- hence why the average game is starting to get worse and worse. If you’re gonna play opening theory, make sure you understand to the absolute fullest why you’re playing it and use it to refine your skills instead of memorizing it. Otherwise, you’re in for a bad game. In fact, I would use opening theory as a tactical and positional study instead of memorization.