When you get experienced at chess (aka 1300+ OTB) you should find the need to memorize openings. I can't tell you how many games I have won just by systematically using the ideas of a certain opening.
should we memorize openings or not??
Sort:
thats right i agree but its so difficult to memorize too many openings
understand the basics!
but definitely learn the "theme" rather than move order of openings. it's pretty fun =)
aka ideal games for a specific openings, like a mating attack in the kings' indian defense. the kinda games that make you want to play the opening.
what would you do if you are in a game and the other player started an unusual opening that you dont know about?
Oct 4, 2009
0
#6
sympolic wrote:
do you think we should memorize the openings or should we understand the basics and the rules and it would be enough??
good memory is part of chess skills. but memorizing the lines per se and all it's variation and sub-variation is futile to your effort of trying to improve your skills without understanding the idea and prnciples behind it. stick to tactics first and later to positional and strategical idea of finding y0ur next move, you will be amazed that your choice of moves is somehow and more often than not is part of the mainline of that opening you are playing even without you having knowledge of it!
For the most part, you shouldn't memorize specific moves unless necessary. There are some lines of some openings where you need to know some theory to stay alive.
But learning opening ideas I think are possibly the most underrated way to learn about chess strategy. I mean learning the imbalances created by each opening and why a certain move is played instead of a different one. And learning the ideas of a specific opening that you play will be a nice guide but a huge amount of memorization isn't necessary, maybe just a few traps and stuff your opponents might miss. Openings of course aren't the most important part to learn, but they shouldn't be ignored entirely because they can help. An understanding of a hypermodern opening teaches you about hypermodern ideas in general and so on.
I think if you study a couple of openings at first in depth you should be okay. If I were you, study a couple of openings you like so only play a couple for white and a couple for black to start. then once you think youve mastered them, then move on.
when you get experienced.......................1500+ in USCF
Oct 19, 2009
0
#10
If you are a beginner like me, then no.
I am a flat out beginner, so I hope you will find this helpful.
My blitz rating on chess dot com dropped from the 800's to the 600's recently. It's now climbing slowly upward. I fell into the trap of experimenting with different openings, even the closed systems, instead of sticking to fundamental opening principles, i.e., fight for center control, push no more than one or two center pawns in the opening, rapid development of pieces, move each piece only once, avoid early queen development and castle early.
This is what has turned my game around.
First - I stick with a few opening moves that lead to open style games. This develops tactical skills faster than closed systems for me. Notice how I didn't say opening lines with the many variations to memorize, but opening moves. The first two, maybe three moves in a match are all you need to know as a beginner, imo. As White, I now play 1. e4 exclusively. My second move is 2. Nf3, except when:
1. Center Counter Defense - Black plays 1...d5. For White, 2. exd5 is the only good move, to the best of my knowledge. I have seen some players play 2. e5, but I have not found that in any book on openings. Here's where I have the third move memorized. Black plays 2...Qxd5, 3. Nc3. Now, 3. Nc3 is logical because it attacks Black's queen at d5, thus easy to remember. Black's queen must decide, and I hate it when the next move is not book, 3...Qe5+. Ugh! White is forced to block the check and must move one of three pieces: 4. Nbe2, Be2 or Qe2. Exchanging queens so early in a match is not my preference.
2. The French, Caro-Kann and Modern-Gurgenidze Defenses - Black plays either 1...e6, 1...c6 or 1...g6 respectively. White playing 2. d4 is book, and that's all I care to know at this point in my game. The move 2. Nf3 would not be a logical response anyway because there's no pawn to attack.
3. The Sicilian Defense - Black plays 1...c5. The first time I saw this move just a few months ago, I'm thinking, uh? It's weird. In chess speak it's asymetrical. I prefer to play the Closed Sicilian, 2. Nc3 because it defends my pawn at e4. The move, 2. Nf3 doesn't make sense to me yet, except for preparing to castle short. I'm happy defending e4.
4. The Alekhine Defense - Black plays 1...Nf6, attacking e4. A strange first move. Book is 2. e5, but attacking Black's knight requires knowing more theory. I defend e4 with 2. d3. It does block the diagonal for my light squared bishop, but I can still develop both pieces and castle short. It may not be best for now, but I'm a beginner.
5. The Nimzovich Defense on auto-pilot - Sometimes I see Black go into auto-pilot and play 1...Nc6. Book is 1. d4 Nc6 for Nimzo. I play the sober and reliable 2. Nf3 because I stick to my plan of always playing 1. e4 and all is well.
Second - I take a mental break after every blitz game. Maybe it's age? I replay the game in Chessmaster 11 and ask it to find better moves. This has made such a huge change in my chess playing strength. I simply can't overstate post game analysis, even with blitz games.
Third - I just started two correspondence games, and will add more, which gives me the time to ponder. After receiving a move from my opponent, I sit down at my chess board and go into a deep think, even if I'm only on the third move and it looks obvious. I look to see if I can find a better move.
Why do so many players live under this illusion of being better players by memorizing openings? Want to get better at chess? Start by realizing what the ultimate goal of chess is, what is happening when a player is checkmated. Then you work back from that point and learn how to bring about that situation. Openings are actually one of the last things to concentrate on in my opinion. If you do not have a solid base of technique and an understanding of what you are trying to accomplish in the opening and middlegame, then all of your hard work studying will be wasted! Is it possible to memorize reams of opening variations and play them perfectly, sure, for some. But there will be the other 99.99% of us who don't play machine perfect chess, who will throw a spanner in the works. It is at that point that the lack of true understanding will come to light. Never ever study moves, study ideas.
sympolic wrote:
do you think we should memorize the openings or should we understand the basics and the rules and it would be enough??
It's really up to you!
If you have the gift to memorize long variations, why not use it?
It's known that good players uses theyr long term memory, when they play chess.
Memorize openings as long as you understand the moves you memorize .
When I started playing chess I played a lot of 10 minute blitz and had a basic Idea what I wanted to do ( by basic idea i mean i knew a bit of opening principles and I "knew" theory up to a very limited point), after each game I lost and I felt I did so because I played the opening badly I would look in a database at how to improve my play and used an engine to understand why the moves the database recommends work.
This method I feel improved my middlegame as well as my openings.
Oct 19, 2009
0
#14
Chessroshi wrote:
Never ever study moves, study ideas.
I agree. That's why I talked about moves and not opening lines in my previous post. I know the idea behind 2. Nf3 after 1. e4. I also know when not to play 2. Nf3, and why. If a chess player makes that move like a robot, then the memorization of opening lines will end in misery.
learn the idea's behind the openings. i would not bother memorising book lines 15 moves deep, just get the common strategies that white/black might employ in each opening.
i only know the book lines for about 4 openings (and only about 6 or 7 moves into each off the top of my head). play more openings definitely, but more important at early stages is hammering that analysis board in each game, if you do that a few moves deep (and try different variations and move orders), you should find your visualisation skills will improve and you can start looking further ahead. when you do this in game analysis, try some crazy things, what happens if you DON'T defend your bishop, or sacrifice your knight to open up the king's position, maybe you can use this to build up an unstoppable attack, or push that pawn to promotion, or maybe not, but if you don't look for it you won't find it.
play round with that analysis board and have fun! (doesn't work so well for live chess, where analysis boards are against the rules :-P )
Illuminatus wrote:
Alexander Alekhine Interview (1938):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrH-tcDTU48
Interviewer: Now, Dr. Alekhine, tell me, would you say that chess players are born, or do you think a great chess player can be made by hard practice?
Alexander Alekhine: No, frankly, I think the ideal chess player is born. Of course, I look upon chess as an art, and just as you cannot make a great painter or a musician unless the gifts of painting or music are innate in a person, so also, I believe, that for anyone to become outstanding at chess the ability must be born with the player. There is something much more in championship chess than just following the somewhat limited rules of the game. To play a really good chess you must have vision; vision in something of the same way that a creative artist must have if he would lift his performance out of the common art.
Interviewer: Well, of course, as well as vision, I expect first class chess needs a very well trained memory, too, doesn't it?
Alexander Alekhine: Oh, no, that's where chess is just unlike Bridge. One does not require, uh, an outstanding memory. Look forward all the time is the thing to do.
Interviewer: Sounds to me like the perfect game for optimists.
Alexander Alekhine: Yes, you might say so. I never look back on a game or match but try, all the time, to see how I may improve my play.
Bobby Fischer Interview (1963):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdA7I9nPhSU
Interviewer: Tell me this, what qualities do you think a person has to have to become a champion chess player?
Bobby Fischer: Well, it's hard, let's see first of all you have to have a good memory, because, uh, there are a lot of variations you have to remember. Secondly, you have to have a lot of imagination, you have to be able to see a lot of variations in advance, maybe ten moves, twenty moves in advance sometimes, and you have to be, uh, a logical person.
Interviewer: Is it as cold as this? Is it a nice, cold, clear logical thinking?
Bobby Fischer: No, there's a lot, and there's also, another part is psychological. You have to be, I think, a top chess player has to be a master psychologist.
Interviewer: What do you mean by that?
Bobby Fischer: You have to see through your opponent's plan, stop him before he gets his pieces in the position he wants to.
Interviewer: By studying the game or studying the person?
Bobby Fischer: By studying, well, it's sort of a combination you know, you, after awhile, you know how, you know the way a person thinks, then when it comes to chess, you know how to intercept all of his plans.
awesome post!!
Oct 19, 2009
0
#17
ouachita wrote:
You absolutely have to memorize them, not every line of every system, but only those you like to play and often find yourself playing.
It will sound like I am contradicting myself, but my advice above was for the beginning chess player, and it's working for me. My blitz rating keeps climbing because of two things: 1. Sticking with fundamental opening principles, i.e., develop fast and castle early 2. Analysis after each game to find better moves.
With that said, I agree with the quote above "if" you wish to compete. Here's a quote from an International Grandmaster and two time U.S. Champion.
"If you want to play chess competively, you must develop an opening repertoire. That is, you must learn a set of specific opening sequences that allow you to reach a playable middlegame no matter how your opponent plays in the opening." - Patrick Wolff
I feel I'm on my way to having an opening repertoire that finally allows me to reach the middlegame more often with a winning chance. The analysis with Chessmaster after each game has made the biggest difference for me.
Question: Chessmaster will allow me to set a position anywhere within one of my blitz games, and then show me a better sequence of moves about ten deep. I wish I could play that well right now! Will Rybka or Fritz do something similar, i.e., show better moves to play from any point within a chess match? It's pretty amazing what I miss that this very inexpensive little program called Chessmaster picks up, i.e., mate in two...and here I was chasing my opponent's king around the board for 15 moves! 
ideas behind the specific opening seem to be key here. Once the player, student, whatever, understands the idea, then, maybe they should start to look at lines as the understanding of the idea aids in the understanding of the lines. The problem is this: there are too many resources that give lines without giving the ideas. i can look at databases all day long, but if i don't know what the plan of the opening is, it doesn't do me a lick of good.
Oct 20, 2009
0
#19
To develop into a better player you will need to study and observe better players and how they coordinate their attacks and defense.
If you are beginner to intermediate player, I recommend starting with studying endgames and king opposition. I lost count on the games I snatched from the jaws of defeat because my opponent didn't know these skills. Once you know this and are comfortable with performing them, then you will know how to properly trade down for material and/or positional advantage...
do you think we should memorize the openings or should we understand the basics and the rules and it would be enough??