How do people remember all chess moves in openings?

I can't seem to remember more than two moves for the openings I've tried playing. It seems like there are infinite possible ways, and I can't remember which move is the best against my opponent's move. How did you get past this point, or is this a noob query?

If you find the logic behind each move, you dont have to memorize very much. Also if you focus too much on memorizing you can fall into the trap of not thinking about your moves when you play which can lead to blunders.

Opening moves are based on ideas. remembering the ideas makes it much easier to remember the moves. In the same way that it's easier to remember sentences than a bunch of random words, because sentences make so kind of sense. 

Now some of these ideas may be based on subtle positional plans, or complicated tactics, so understanding them may be beyond your current level--and mine!  But if you try to understand what the two sides are trying to accomplish in a particular opening, you will find it easier to makes sense of the moves and remember them [EDIT: jamesstack made the same points]

I think if you have to memorize moves when you are first learning an opening, its okay but after you have a certain familiarity of the positions you need to try to understand more fully why the moves are played and just as importantly why certain moves are not played. The way I do it is play through the lines a book gives and try to guess what the next move is before I see it in print. Sometimes I consult an engine when I guess wrong...other times I just try to figure things out for myself.

The only opening I have ever endeavored to memorize is the "London."  It is within the Chess.com lessons.... https://www.chess.com/lessons/understanding-the-london-system

To reply specifically to your 'original post,' I can remember it cause it is somewhat logical.

I use the huh... lichess... study platform to save some studies with all the opening lines I have on my repertoire, then from time to time I read them again and again. It's really hard to memorize everything, but it's something you really need to keep seeing. The more I study them the more I find myself skipping stuff when I stidy because I already know it. Maybe someday I'll have all the lines on my head? And of course, you need to keep playing the same lines. Doesn't need to be just one opening, but say a fixed repertoire. If you vary your plays TOO much then you're not really gonna retain anything you studied... 

The way it helps me the most to memorize a specific line is getting it on a game correctly. If I ever get to a good position I studied or if I get to make my opponent fall into a trap, then it's really hard for me to forget the line later.

You don't need to memorize openings to play a good opening, but there are some openings that you will just play a lot more and those are usually worth studying more than others. When you play an opening a lot you will probably just start to remember how to play that opening without needing to study.

So, I personally only play a few openings, and my memorization of the theory isn't very deep, BUT:

When you start playing lots of games with a given opening, you'll start to see and remember patterns that occur again and again on the board.  If you're working on memorizing that opening, you'll either find that what you're memorizing tracks what you see in your games, or you find that the other player will tend to deviate in some predictable ways from what the theoretically best move is.

I personally find that spending my time memorizing one- or two-move best responses to how my opponents deviate from the main line is more practically useful than going deeper into the main line, but that's because at my level most people aren't memorizing their openings that deeply either.

It starts to make patterns before too long. For some faster than others. Mnemonics anyone?

I don't

I could always memorise lines even as a beginner. Usually just had to read them once. It may not be too late to train your memory but it gets harder as you get older. I was 36 when I learned chess. It would be much harder now and there would be no incentive.

I just play an opening I feel to play

I think at the higher levels that memorization isnt blind memorizaion most of the time...its more of a by product of spending so many hours trying to understand a position. If they happen to forget something they can probably just think through the position and find all the right moves.

Yeah, understanding why the moves are made makes it easy to remember all sorts of variations.

Of course this is impossible for a beginner, because first they should study endgames, strategy, etc. After that moves will make enough sense to remember.

... and of course, even professional players forget parts of their opening prep. Everyone forgets things here and there.

Different players have a different affinity for different types of position. They tend to memorise lines that can lead more to the type of positions they prefer. If you try to play positions you prefer, obviously there's more enjoyment and so there's more incentive to calculate variations. For instance, I particularly like positions in the King's Indian Defence, Classical variation, Mar del Plata, Ne1 line, after the heavy pieces have come off, which can often be down the h file. With the queens off, it's typically safe for white to turn all his attention to the Q-side, usually exploiting the creation of space there, when the c file is opened. I've worked out some of my own moves and often find I can win.

But learning to really understand that type of position was the result of hundreds of games and at first, white plays memorised moves and only later begins to really understand them and is able to make better judgements. It's really the same for all openings. No point in inventing the wheel, so if you have a very good memory, then memorise all the lines. As you play them, you'll understand them. It really can't be the other way round, if you want to succeed as a player and win competitions, because most of us don't have 50 hours a week to study chess and in any case we need to try things out.

Easily the best way to try out openings and other ideas is in 3-day chess against a fairly strong opponent, say, over 2100, which should give them a proper test. They, if possible, against an over 2300. Not in blitz, which is very useful to aid familiarisation. Bullet isn't even good for that. Bullet doesn't aid chess ability and probably hinders it.

What I have noticed is that many grandmasters take a long time to make their moves in the opening. I dont doubt they know what every theoretical move is but I dont think they make those moves without thinking about them. GM Alexander Grischuk even spent 72 minutes on the 11th move in one of his games in the most recent candidates tournament.

*

Some Grandmasters play really fast. I observe tournaments from time to time and time and what I have noticed is most GMs take their time even in the opening but there are some exceptions. I dont remember which tournament it was but there was a game between Carlsen and Karjakin that ended in about 20 minutes....an uneventful draw in the Berlin but okay its the Berlin.....it would be really hard to find an improvement over the board in such a heavily analyzed opening. Then a few weeks ago in one of the grand prix events, I saw a game between Aronian and someone where with the increment Aronian had almost as much time as he started with through most of the game while his opponent used a lot of time. Aronian's speed of play elicited a funny comment from one of the commentators," why is he playing so fast? Maybe he wants to go home and eat ice cream?"

It might be a kind of fashion, as well as a psychological thing. It used to be the norm to blitz an opening if you were a GM who intended to introduce a novelty .... especially a trap. Now that might send out a signal, so they play slow. Probably just like a poker face.

Its not just that game though.....In the video about the 72 minute think I seem to remember GM Daniel King saying Grischuk has a reputation for long thinks. The larger point I was making though is its more common for GMs to play slowly than blitz their moves out. I think they play slowly because they are actually thinking about their moves which makes sense to me because not everything in theory can be trusted. Theory is constantly evolving,,,maybe not in something like the Berlin but in other openings they are and if theory is evolving then that means something in theory is  inaccurate or even completely incorrect, so these GMs take a look at the position before they make the memorized move just in case they notice something. Hmmmm I dont think Im going to convince anyone of my point of view and I really should be getting back to work on my chess studies, so I am going to unfollow. Hope you guys have fun discussing. )

Grandmasters may spend time in the opening to recall games that were previously played in the line they are following. This may help them conceptualize ideas and predict what their opponent is going to play. Other times grandmasters have to think through positions when their opponent takes them out of prep. 

But mostly, grandmasters spend lots of time in the opening deciding what to play. There's so many options: Ruy Lopez, Italian, Queen's Gambit; as Black: Sicilian, 1. e5, Queen's Gambit Declined, Slav? What opening will they play? What kind of positions do they, and their opponent seek? How might their opponent react? What is the strength/playstyle of their opponent? Are they going for a safe draw in a tournament? Do they have to go for a win? In short, grandmasters spend LOTS of time in the opening for a variety of reasons. They have to take a lot more into consideration than the average Joe in a chess.com blitz game.