theory vs no theory and my problem

When I get this new interest on chess I have being dealing with the opening question in several different ways, and none of them seams to be satisfying enougth.

My first aproach, and still the deepest aproach I have made, is to NO play openings by memory, but to study each position as it is and then make the best move I can find. This gives me 2 problems: 1. time consuming, I have a high rate of blitz games losses over this, basically any 10 minutes game that goes over 25 moves I loss on time. 2. My analisys of the position are not good enougth. This is, in some of the games the oponent is playing what some grand player did, and I find myself up to 10 or maybe more moves playing agains Fisher, Alekin, Ruy Lopez... and the so. Their analys are way better than mine and they beat me on the board.

This second point comes clear when I consider that my standad chess score is 200 points less than my 960 score. This is, when the oponent is away from the theory I perform 200 points better.

So as my score goes up it becomes clear the necesity to be aware of the opening theory. I get 2 tools for helping me on this. One is in this website, where I can see the moves in terms of stadistics, what move is more popular and how many of the games ended on victory for one of the players or draws. The second tool I downloaded is for free in another website. It basically have the openings on a database; So the program shows me the opening, I have to memorice it and then play it, some sort of "Simon game" but in chess instead of colors. I trained for about an hour whit that tool and get the Alekin memoriced up to move 6 and some of the variations up to move 10.

My problem with this 2 tools is simple. I don't understand what I am playing. I know it is good, even better than my game, but I don't know why.

So what I need is something that explains to me the reasons behind the moves, the explanation why this move is better than the other, and the particularities of say position.

Is there something out there like that? preferable, if is on computer, still I don't mind books or other resourses.

I appreciate advice on this matter of mine, and probably of other players arround.

You can get this kind of explanation either from a specialized text on the opening, or from a stronger player who knows the opening you're interested in.

But it's also a good exercise to try to understand the move given by theory. If you have another move in mind, you can look at the database to see what strong players play against your intended move. If what you see doesn't convince you, then you may as well play your move. If you're convinced, then you've answered the "what if..." question.

Let me give an example :

1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 - here theory states 2...Nd5 is best, but I wonder about 2...Ne4

I look at the database, and look for a game played by a strong player as white here. I find Moroz - Vavra, 1998. The next moves are : 3.d3 Nc5 4.d4 Ne6 5.f4 - this looks already awkward for Black, as white is building a super-strong center and kicks our Knight in the process, that can't be good...

Now it doesn't answer the question why 2...Nd5 is good in the 1st place. Well, usually good opening moves follow some opening guidelines, such as "fight for the center, develop your pieces, defend against threats, prevent your opponent from doing this, etc." Usually, you can expect the theory move to follow those principles. If it doesn't, try the "what if...?" question, and you may come up with an explanation, or a good personal idea

The answer you are looking for is simple from a particular angle. First things first, computers and grandmasters' games analisys has provided a set of openings that have been calculated to be the best positions possible one could find themselves in as long as each move is made in the sequences of the openings properly.

However, humans either don't always see the best moves or will intentionally play a move that isn't book to try to throw a player of their game if they suspect either their visualization skills are weak, or just to try to catch them off guard, so they make an unintended move ( a common tactic in blitz chess).

First things first, is it better to be able to play chess and improvise from any position, a calculation ,that is solid or perhaps as good as any computer? Certainly it is.You can't always go by memory. So you are better off to be able to visualize what should be played.I believe it is possible to even develop instincts when dealing with certain opponents or styles. you can't learn that from a book or computer.

I recommend you return to playing games with long time allowances. The top level players almost always play for all the marbles in games with a lot of time allowed. Literally hours. Once you have mastered visualization, then try to use speed chess as an exercise. Being able to move faster than a timer or trick your opponent into bad moves isn't what makes any of the greats what they are. good Luck.

Thanks for your comments.

hicetnunc: I try to understand the reasons why the moves are made. Still I am insecure about my own interpretations, for maybe there is more deeper reasons behind a move that what my actual level allows me to see. I think your advice to find how strong players punish those who goes out the book may help me understand why the other moves are bad. I am going to do that.

nameno1had: I am starting to think that the good move is the one the book says it is. If the oponent for one reason or the other goes out the book, then sufering should come for such act.

I would love to be on the position where I can punish somebody who decide to play something weak to see if I can profit the mistake. Still for doing that it is not enougth to just know the good move by memory but it is necesary to know the why a move is good so to explode the oponent mistake when do something else.

The time problem is a real problem for me. I play online games with 1 to 6 days per move and have a score of some 1500s (the 960 goes arround the 1700s, I blame this diference on the opening theory the oponent knows), I play blitz with time set at usually 10 minutes and have an score that goes on the 1300s, still when I play blitz on 15 and up to 20 minutes my score is on the 1500s. So at some point on the curve time is no longer relevant, or I am playing my online chess like blitz... Anyway, I spend substancially more time than the oponent on the opening, againg I blame this on that the oponent is playing by memory and I am thinking the moves. 

I am also coming to the idea that the best estrategy to be a good chess player is to play the opening by memory, the midle game by positional principles and the end by tactics. And having some level of flexibility on this, of course.

hicetnunc: I try to understand the reasons why the moves are made. Still I am insecure about my own interpretations, for maybe there is more deeper reasons behind a move that what my actual level allows me to see. I think your advice to find how strong players punish those who goes out the book may help me understand why the other moves are bad. I am going to do that

True, but if you find a good enough explanation, and no alternative idea to challenge the 'theory move', then you've already understood it to some extent (at least you've explained it).

"1.e4 controls the center and opens a line for my bishop" is a good enough explanation for 1.e4 being a good move.

"1.e4 increases my chances to get an attack against my opponent" is a deeper explanation, but may not be needed to play the move.

"1.e4 avoids the QGD Lasker variation main line, whose current theoretical status is that there's no way for white to get an edge (cf. recent games by GMs...)" is an even deeper explanation, but once again, not required.

What you need is a good enough story to remember the moves and understanding why the pieces are on a given square. You'll refine your knowledge with experience.

I still think you didn't really dwell on one key point I was trying to make. Simply put, regardless of what anyone ever plays, at anytime, in any game, being able to properly visualize and calculate the next move you should make, will give you the single greatest weapon you can have as a chess player.

Trying to memorize a book opening,is more like using a crutch instead of learning to walk by crawling first. I am not saying what you are attempting isn't humanly possible. In fact it is humanly typical to always have expectations greater than what we should have in reality. You technically could use a program to tell you what move to make in every game until you memorize a crap load of positions and then you might be pretty good from memory. The guy who learned to visualize will still be better.

In effect, using a grandmaster's book moves to open, only pick you up for a big let down each game. This is true, even if you leave the game feeling like you hung in there with one of the bid dogs for a while. Sometimes I wish I would have had training wheels to help me learn to ride my first bike, but I didn't. I think it made me a much better bike rider in the end because, I learned with no "crutch". Happy trails and good luck.

Find a copy of the book "Logical chess move by move." The author is Irving Chernev. He goes through several games and explains the reason behind every move. The book is aimed at players who are just getting their bearings in chess. It will be very helpful for you.

The differences between your blitz and 960 rating should not be chaulked up to "I do better . . . " as you have no idea what the difference between the playing pools are. Ratings show one's relative strength, and what it is related to is the strength of the people playing in a given pool. Since all blitz players do not play 960 and likewise all 960 players do not play blitz, it is not at all obvious that a 200 point rating differential means you play "better" at 960 than at blitz. 

It might be that you do. But other factors certainly play into any rating differences.

The real test to see if you play better at 960 versus blitz would be to subject a large set of your games to compure analysis to find the best move and see what your average centi-pawn variance from the best computer move is within each game. Certainly a time consuming study, and one that probably isn't worth much in terms of real feedback 

@htdavidht

@Kingpatzer

I am glad you brought this point up to the original poster. I didn't even think about it, but to back up what you are saying is that systems for ratings have their limits depending upon the biases that can be derived in them. For example, I can go through tests I have called match the masters.

These tests have portions of actual matches played between grandmasters. The test questions are often multiple choice. It is easier to see the right move when you have a set of suggestions. Honestly when you see 8 good moves in the middle game it is still difficult. You might only see 6 or 7 of these in a live game. I test any where from 1800 to 2000 typically, but the computer here gives me fits set on medium difficulty sometimes.

In fact perhaps, because I have spent so much time trying to match the masters, I seem to play as well or better against the computer here on the hardest level than medium. It is because of my memory dictating to me, instead of me visualizing the right move. It has just hit me as to how much this is really an unescapeable idea. I hope you can use this information in conjunction with what I have already said to get you to not worry about ratings and focus on taking the time to figure out the best move.