should we memorize openings or not??

Nothing is free, buy a good opening book:

 "Discovering Chess Openings - Building opening skills from basic principles" John Emms.

"Reassess your chess" Silman gives you a lot! (almost free)

I am totally putting this on Chess Quotes! Brilliant!!

Memorize openings:

You need to know some variations, no matter if it's a slow developing opening or a sharp line.

You can't relay on your calculation strength and your positional vision all the time. If you don't know anny openings by heart, you could easy improve your playing strenght.

I'm waiting for the next edition of 'Reassess your chess' (next March?) But yeah, I guess I know I'll have to buy books eventually if I want to improve.

Thanks.

I'm coming to a point in chess where I feel that I need to take my openings to the next level. Upon undertaking the study of the variations of the openings of interest, I was worried that I'd start to become a "memorizer"...

Learning the dichotomies of the opening systems and their variations is a rich part of the chess experience. I think that everone here is in agreement that emphasis ought to be placed on the ideas, rather than the move order... I'd just like to say, that it is pretty much impossible not to take a healthy approach to opening study. I've been trying to increase the depth of my Najdorf Sicilian... and when I come to a source that is "rich" in Najdorf line, my head wants to explode because the page is move-after-move-of-non-stop-algebraic-notation-with-five-to-six-layers-of-discussion-because-the-author-just-has-to-analyze-every-posible-move-anyone-has-ever-made.

Now more clear, and more enlightening, is to find a move in the variation that looks promising, and to start looking for grandmaster games in which that move was played. Now you are not memorizing lines, but you are seeing ideas in action.

I think openings are something you learn gradually, over your whole chess-playing life.

I think even beginner players should have a main weapon with White, a main Black response to e4, and another to d4. Not in depth, just an effective way to get the pieces out at your own level. Choosing something a little off-beat is probably good, sometimes it can lead to a good result against a stronger player.

Over time, you will identify which lines give you the most trouble, work on those. But openings should not be your main focus.

I've said before, there is a golfing analogy here. Good golfers always say that putting is the most important part of the game, but they sometimes fail to understand the frustration of a weaker player who take 8 or 10 shots before they get the opportunity to put. You have to be able to get the ball in play. Good chess players often say the endgame is most important, but they often fail to understand the analogous frustration of the beginner who never make it out of the middle game.

Well I don't think the endgame is the most important. I mean you need to know the basic mates of course and basic  and maybe some intermediate chess endings (particualrly rook and pawn), but I have gotten a way with a very average endgame as usually me or my opponent get a decisive advantage in the middlegame, often making the endgame mindlessly simple ( I'm a piece or two pawns up). Only masters need to know any hard stuff, because when I look and silman's endgame course in the master section, that would be of absolutely no help to me as endgames as close as that happen extremely rarely.

Indeed, I'd advise endgames first too. Near equal(or equal, if you must play for a draw,) King-and-pawn, or Rook-and-pawn endgames, are not that rare. Of course, that's just an opinion, and you can probably get away with not playing a theoritically perfect endgame.

As for openings, it depends. For some, yes, I say you need to memorize some lines, especially the devlish traps in some openings. Others, not so much. The thing is, at whatever level you are at, it is unlikely that your opponent has done much, if any, more opening memorization than you.

I think you could make more decisive gains in a middlegame than an endgame the vast majority of the time. But no part of the game should be ignored, and that includes openings, although complete beginners could probably do good enough with knowing the general principles and maybe the Italian game or something.

However, in practice, I have not played in many close endgames at all, it just hasn't happened to me. I mean I often play positionaly (playing for small gains) yet don't like the endgame so much nor actually need to convert these things too often in an endgame! From my experience I know what takes priority for me and it just hasn't been a great understanding of the endgame. I learn some intermediate technique and I'm good.

"Near equal(or equal, if you must play for a draw,) King-and-pawn, or Rook-and-pawn endgames, are not that rare. Of course, that's just an opinion, and you can probably get away with not playing a theoritically perfect endgame."

Very strange, as it seems very rare in my games and again I tend to play more positionally so it's not even really a middlegame attack that usually gets the win either. I suppose it's worth being prepared for, but this just doesn't happen in the majority of my games, and I'm 1700 uscf.

One angle: What you memorize in openings might be outdated in 10 years, but what you memorize/learn in middlegames or endgames will likely not.

Well I consider 10 years a pretty long time. So the memorization may need to be redone but the ideas will probably not change.

You are quite right about what you've said, IMO. But, I think the endgame study pays off because it helps you become a better player in several ways. I think a lot of the things you learn to do in endgames apply in the middle game tactically, and also knowing endgames helps in knowing when the endgame favors you.  Really knowing endgames is almost like getting draw odds. You can safely simplify down to an ending that is probably drawn and with superior understanding you steal the win while your opponent garbles his position. This seriously happens a lot. I am constantly stunned to see players who have given me a terrific fight, who have just exhausted me in the middle game and have me desperately thinking, "if I can just get a draw here, i'll be happy" suddenly turn into weak little pussy cats in the end game. There is no downside to studying the endgame, really.

I can't think of any single area of study that's improved my game more than the endgame.

I totally believe you and understand what you're saying, but I just haven't had to prove too much good endgame play in most of my games. But those rook and pawn endgames are worth learning in case they do come up because when they do they can be downright scary! It does help to be prepared for them, but it just doesn't seem to be the priority for me that most people suggest. And I really haven't made any connection like "you learn how the pieces work together from a bishop and knight mate" that helped but that's what many strong players claim.

I agree with the statement that playing the endgame "above your rating level" is like getting draw odds. I suppose it's closer to "winning slightly better positions while drawing slightly worse positions"

Those endgames are worth learning not just for when they come up, but to help you recognize when you can make them come up.  I can't count the number of games I've lost or drawn where I continued to grind away in the middlegame in a won position because I didn't recognize that there was a simplification down to a won endgame.

Another good and valid point... so we've established learning the endgame is good. Thumbs up.

Op's question was about the opening, LOL!

To answer is directly: Yes/No! (really!)

Yes you want to study openings to the point of having the lines memorized.

No! don't merely memorize. It isn't enough!

It is so easy nowdays with computers to study openings intelligently -- it just makes no sense to study them badly.

I like bouncing back and forth between studying master games and playing against the computer.

I take the opening I want to master and load up a bunch of master games and play thru them.

Then I fire up  my favorite chess program and play against it. I get torched... I go back to the master games and see how they avoided the problems I found... and then I go back to playing against the compter... and in this back and forth I learn the lines and the ideas and the traps!  The ideas and the traps are often sort of related. (*edit* -- traps is the wrong word... I mean the common pitfalls)

I'm currently doing this with the King's Gambit. It's an interesting educational process. Yes, of course you can flash forward to just memorizing the most current theoretically correct line, but I seriously think doing that is almost worthless.

The biggest problem I see with memorizing exact lines from a non-master's point of view is that the people your playing almost never play according to what the books says they should play.

Secondly, if the book doesn't explain how to capitalize on every single mistake your opponent makes you are left trying to figure them out yourself. And if that mistake is simply a tactical error you can often figure it out if you think long enough. But so much of the time the mistakes lead to very vague (from a casual players point of view) strategical or positional errors over the course of the game. And that is too much to ask of most casual/club players.

Right now I am trying to figure out the ideas behind my favorite openings. As well as known weaknesses and strengths with just a few openings so I can work it out through trial and error.

That being said I still believe that the best way is to memorize opening lines and the most common variations you play. Otherwise your limiting yourself. But sometimes it's easier to play an opening dozens or hunderds of times to get your own feel for the weaknesses and strengths and then when your opening book says to make a certain move you are better equipped to understand it.

Its most important to understand the ideas/goals of the openings you play but some memory work certainly helps and is very practical if you play tournament chess. You might "find" the correct first 10 moves in  a razor sharp line without having memorized the moves only to find yourself behind your opponent 30 minutes on the clock because he DID memorize the moves and this is a situation I try to avoid.