How do people remember all chess moves in openings?

It depends whether people have a good memory or not so it isn't a great analogy; since no lives depend on chess and chess isn't a physical skill like surgery is. If you have a good memory then use it and you'll have an advantage over others. People seem to act as if using memory is somehow cheating.

Just go with the flow...

chessable and lichess studies

I reckon every response in this thread is a 'good answer.' Everyone memorises, but trying to learn multiple openings purely by rote isn't really gonna work unless it's your whole life and you're some kind of savant. Basically, getting the 'why' part is how it gets committed to memory so effectively. You replicate patterns in multitudes of games, repeating those that make you happy and avoid repeating things that didn't. If you wander into unfamiliar territory and suffer for it, analysis will show where you went wrong and you remember not to do that. -Diverging, I think this is where rank beginners are liable to go wrong with 'opening study...' trying to learn more than one at a time, and picking something complex straight away. Trying to memorise 9 moves of opening x, then moving on to some new opening to memorise 9 mainline moves. If you're a casual player pick and stick, you might know that opening in a couple of years...

Do you mean that I disagree with it and you're using a tactic of claiming I misunderstand it? If we could understand all the moves we make before we make them, chess would be an easy game indeed: but that's not how it is.

If I were going for a long walk over unfamiliar territory and I didn't have a map, I'd try to borrow one and memorise key features, turning points and so on. Not having a map is the norm in chess, especially otb, where looking at a chess book as you play isn't allowed.

There has to be a first time to play any line for real, doesn't there. So you try to memorise key features and as you actually play it, you may then come to understand it as you play. If you go wrong then you'll probably look at some more analysis and make a decision about how to respond better and that itself is memorisation. You'll consider the new line and try to memorise key deviations within that.

I think you're making a false distinction between memorisation and understanding. One is really just a more profound version of the other. But you won't understand something if you can't remember what it is and, as I pointed out, I thought very clearly, if understanding were really fundamental to the game, it would be an easy game. In reality, understanding of various situations comes to us quite slowly. I don't disagree with the need for understanding but it doesn't happen by magic, most usually. Perhaps you might try to understand why I'm saying that memorisation is far more important than many people believe.

As others have already pointed out, understanding is better than memorization. On the other hand, if you find out that a certain move can be exploited or leads to an unfavorable position somewhere down the line, you better remember it. Because remembering is easier than calculating the drawbacks of each move from scratch during the game.

In my experience, remembering a move that has no meaning to me proved to be very difficult. I couldn’t even remember the game I just played 15 minutes ago further than move 6 or 7. The only way to remember a move long term was to A) make sure I understand the move and the reasoning behind it and B) Make sure the move has meaning to me.

I started with identifying a few ‘key’ positions. Since I wasn’t able to know entire openings and my opponents threw a lot of random moves at me, my first decision was to ignore most of them and only focus on a couple of main lines. My only goal was to be able to memorize my next move in these key positions. I even tried to give these lines nicknames. Only after I had ‘mastered’ these specific lines would I expand into other lines. That worked for me.

If I look at your opening repertoire, @DarthPhy, it looks like you are not playing moves consistently. I’m not saying you should, but for the purpose of remembering your lines it might help. Let me illustrate. (btw, I’ve only looked at your games on chess.com playing white since 1 January 2022, so just your recent games).

You play d4 (mostly) and the most common reply is d5. Then you play Nc3 in most games. It appears that there are 3 main moves you need to understand. Nf6, e6 and Nc6. Should be easy enough. 

However, after Nf6 you played e3 42 times, Nf3 17 times, Bf4 10 times, e4 5 times, Bg5 3 times, Be3 2 times and h3 1 time.  That’s a lot of variation. If your opponent plays e6 instead of Nf6, you play either e3 Nf3 e4 Be3 Bf4 Ne4 or a3. And if he plays 2. Nc6 you play e3, Nf3 e4, Bf4 Nb5, Be3 or Nxd5 (terrible move, but it was a bullet game). What this means is that after 1.d4 d5 2. Nc3 XXX 3. XXX on move 2.5 you have 21 different positions. Since your opponent has between 3 and 10 different moves to play for each position, you basically have well over a 100 possible positions after move 3 (minus transpositions). That is if you play 2.Nc3, which you don’t always do. You also played 2. Nf3, 2. e3 2. e4, 2. c3, 2. Be3 and 2. g4.

In summary, in your last couple of hundred games you play so many lines, that almost all of your openings are unique, you seldom see positions more than a couple of times. 

Why consistency? If you had played d4 consistently, instead of the 14 different first moves you played, you would have played d4 1,080 times. You would face 1.d5 now 567 times. If you play Nc3 consistently, you would face Nf6 over 200 times (37%). Let’s say you just picked either 3. Bg5 or 3. e4 as your next move, and you studied it, you would be an expert by now, especially since you have played 200 games from that position by now. There is no doubt you would easily be able to remember most of the variations by now. I don’t think you should play a specific line 200 times. But I’m sure that if you play a line 40 times before moving on to the next variation, you’ll be able to remember them a lot easier! Good luck.

Incidentally, as a beginner/improving player, when I was trying to master openings that were beyond my present capability, I memorised incrementally, without even trying to remember entire lines. Just every few games I would try to expand my knowledge of the opening. After I became a much better player, I could memorise lines quite effectively without doing that and often play them with success first time. But I do get the impression that imagining that people can just understand difficult lines they haven't played before, and telling them that they should do so, when they're beginners, is pretentious.

The key is UNDERSTANDING, NOT MEMORIZING!

Take the French Defense.  If you cannot explain the following, you have learned nothing about the French.  Does not matter that you have moves memorized.

After 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 Why is it that after:

A) 3.e5, 3...c5 is clearly the best move?

B) 3.Nd2, 3...c5 is a strong move, though not the only choice?

C) 3.Nc3, 3...c5?? Is a terrible move?

D) After a stupid move like 3.f3 (not covered in books), 3...c5 is not the right move?

Again, if you cannot answer this, you do not know jack about the French, even if you memorized this far.

The first 3 all have to do with your d5-pawn!  After 3.e5, all tension and pressure is taken off of your d-pawn.  It is now a strong point for Black, and the White d-pawn is a fixed target.  3...c5 pressures White's center with no weakening to your position.

After 3.Nc3, 3...c5?? Is a terrible move because White has not committed the e-pawn yet, and the Knight on c3 directly hits the d-pawn.  After 4.exd5! exd5, Black has a very weak pawn on d5 that can never be protected by a pawn.  The Knight on c3 directly hits the d5-pawn, and White can build up an attack against that fixed target.

So why is 3...c5 good against 3.Nd2 when White has not committed the e-pawn?  From d2, there is no pressure on d5.  He would have to go back to b1 and out to c3 to put ant pressure on the pawn.  White's Knight also blocks in his own Bishop, which in turn blocks in his own pawn.  So White's play is very slow just to avoid getting his pawns doubled, and Black is willing to take an isolated d-pawn that cannot be easily attacked in return for opening up his pieces and gaining an initiative on White.

In line D, 3...c5 is just stupid because 3...dxe4 wins material.  If 4.fxe4, the 4...Qh4+ and 5...Qxe4.

The same goes for any other opening.  Why 4...Nf6 in most Sicilian Lines?  Why is 3.f3 OK in the Caro but not the French?  In the QGD, what is Black waiting for before taking the pawn on c4?  Why are the King's Indian and Pirc nothing alike despite the only initial difference being the White c-pawn?  Why is the e5-pawn not hanging in the Ruy Lopez after 3...a6 4.Bxc6 dxc6?

You need to be able to answer these types of questions, not memorize moves.  Why?  What happens if your opponent deviates?  Do you know why it is bad?  Why After 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Nc6 are 5.Ne2 and 5.f4 weaker than 5.Nf3?  Just memorizing 5.Nf3 Qb6 does you nothing if White does not play 5.Nf3.  Why did you lose?  Because White didn't play the best move?  Pa-Leez?

You just completely refuted your own thesis, since we're talking about beginning and improving players. How are they going to understand those points: especially the last one? Understanding depends on experience. Experience means playing and if you can't remember the moves, you're b ---ered.

Hi! My name is Lauren Goodkind and I’m a respected  chess coach and chess YouTuber who helps beginners out : 

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCP5SPSG_sWSYPjqJYMNwL_Q

Tell yourself you will memorize the openings!  

1) Just practice many times on a chess board.    Repetition works!  

2) Hire a chess coach to help you memorize openings. 

I hope this helps!  

Anyhow, the O.P. is "how do people remember moves?".

It isn't "should they try to do so?"

And the answer is: by ideas and general principles. 

OP, I've been on both sides of this. When I was young, I once had the brilliant idea of just trying to memorize the NCO, a big 500+ pages book with only moves and no explanation. That was a terrible waste of time. Sure, I got through the first 8 moves fine, but then I had no idea what I was doing. When I got stronger, I started to understand how futile this approach was. By looking at an IM playing blitz, I started to understand that they also didn't know that much theory. They just played normal moves and got positions that were fine. I switched to no theory for a while, playing 1. d4, 2. g3, develop kingside and then b3 and develop queenside. I gained 200 points in no time. I didn't study openings again till I was over 2200. I know players that are stronger than me that do not study the opening and that do not know theory. Every game is a new adventure for them. 

The problem with memorization is that you don't know what to do when your opponent plays an inferior move. And that inferior move might not at all be so much worse than the more fashionable move you've learned. Just because a GM has shown that white can get a small edge if black plays a certain old line, doesn't mean that you in practice will find this refutation. The other problem with memorization is the way you use your time. Memorization will costs you heaps and heaps of time. This time could've been used to study the middlegame for example. I'm not saying you can't improve as a player from memorization, as you do see new positions and are getting familiar with normal looking moves, it's just not nearly as fast as you would otherwise do. And memorization is boring. It sucks the joy out of chess. At least it does for me.

Here's why studying opening theory as a lower rated player is particularly useless. There are certain opening principles that rule good opening play. They are: controlling the center (white would like to get both e4 and d4 as a big pawn center, black should try and prevent that), getting all of your pieces developed (every piece moves only once and should be used in the battle for the center) and getting your king safe (castling). When you look at most of the openings out there, almost all moves up to move 8 can be explained with these opening principles. Grandmasters don't do crazy weird stuff in the beginning of the game. Playing with these principles in mind helps you play normal moves, even when your opponent plays weird and illogical moves. I've even seen players up to 1700 regularly not adhere strictly enough to these opening principles. If you do, you're already playing the opening better than all of them. 

For these first 8 moves you don't need any memorization if you know the opening principles. After that real theory starts. Grandmaster ideas don't come up at move 4, they come up after the easy moves are done. These ideas can be hard to understand. Especially if they're computer generated. Moreover, these ideas build upon one another. One idea might have gotten refuted, but this new idea makes it impossible for you to play the right counter/defense against that previous idea. And even if you memorize it perfectly, these ideas are all aiming to get a small advantage for white or to equalize with black! That's very important at high level chess. But in lower rated chess games, who has ever won a game where their opponent was left no chance after the opening and a small advantage was duly converted? No one! Evaluations in lower rated games tend to change massively during a game. There are tactical shots that each player misses too. It's just not a problem if white starts with a very small advantage after the opening, because the mistakes both players will make subsequently will be bigger than that tiny advantage that was earned by many hours of memorization. 

OP, leave the opening alone. It'll cost you massive amounts of time for little to no gains. Do tactics and study some middlegame strategy. That would at least be my advise as a life long chess trainer.

I agree it's a combination of memorization and understanding the why of a move.

As Bobby Fischer said, there's billions of possible moves during a chessgame, but only a few good ones. Hence true chess is not a game of many possibilities but of finding the correct moves.

Because other moves simply generate weaknesses down the line.

So yes, you have to study your lines.

Also, I have compiled a visual reference of most opening lines, and it is MUCH bigger than the NCO.

Don't think there are a few hundred opening lines to pick from; there's a couple thousand of them. Memorization of a few key lines is nice to have in your repertoire, but to try and learn a volume is a futile attempt. It's better to enjoy and level up in the complexity of your own ideas rather than making chess into a textbook course.

You don't have to. Just play and analyze each game after playing, and learn from trial and error. You will eventually learn the correct move orders of the opening. 

Focusing on pattern recognition training would be the priority of new players. 

Once you are experienced with patterns and traps, you are ready to learn the openings because then you can understand the reasonings behind opening move orders. Opening isn’t even that important as people say it to be. It's important only for master level players. 

An example is this. I learned the white side of the King's Indian by reference to two of Nunn's books. He wrote a general KID book and a specialised one on the Mar del Plata. I'd just started playing 1.d4 and I knew nothing about the KID, which was in vogue at the time. I had to memorise an effective line against the KID, if I was to play 1.d4.

I chose lines with 9. Ne1, after studying the alternatives. It was clear that 9. Ne1 is better than Nd2 or b4. Next, I decided to play lines with 13.g4, which pretty much stops black's kingside attack. I just ran it through the Stockfish-driven analysis tool here and 13.g4 reduces white's position (according to it) from about +0.9 to -0.4. That pretty much sums up in a nutshell that the analysis tool is completely useless except for tactics.

I needed a move order for moves 10 to 11 and I went with Nunn's recommendation of 10.Nd3 and 11.Bd2. I carefully memorised the lines and won my first game, playing against the KID, against decent opposition. I continued to play that way for several years and often was criticised by people telling me I'd lost a tempo and could just play 10.Be3 and I would still have time for 11. f3.

After a few years I started trying the 10.Be3 line and found that I was indeed getting some quicker wins with it and it was possible to couple that with the thematic c4-c5 pawn advance even if black's N is on d7, which makes it a pawn sacrifice. I was suspicious of such lines for white, though. The thing is that a lot of masters are very tactical. Perhaps some of them are actually positionally weak and make up for it with superb, tactical ability. I was sceptical. Then someone busted the 10.Be3 line. They knew the correct move order for black that smashes up white's centre. I've a feeling it was on Daily 3-day, here. Then the same thing happened again.

So it took me fifteen years or maybe more, to fully understand why white should lose the tempo and play 9.Ne1, 10.Nd3, 11.Bd2 and 12.f3, rather than 9.Ne1, 10.Be3, 11.f3. This coincided with my finally working out in detail white's winning plans after playing c4-c5 and cd. Years ago, I'd had a discussion with Kingscrusher, where he incorrectly maintained that white only opens the c-file when white has a target there. In fact, white opens the c-file asap and can use either the c or h files to get the heavy pieces off. Because most decent players are not going to allow the attack where white plays c5-c6 instead of cd.

So this is the reason why memorisation definitely precedes understanding. There is no question at all, about it. People should memorise what I just wrote!

Years of study, trial and error, and repetition.

(Emphasis on the years part.)

@#52
Could be. I have no idea if GMs and so forth know about that discovery, regarding white's q-side moves in the afore-mentioned Mar del Plata continuations. There's one move in particular, which white should always make if at a loss for what to do, in making a constructive waiting move. I won't mention what it is, either. Well, only if sufficiently bribed.

I think there'll be a shift away from 1. e4 towards 1. d4, 1. Nf3, 1. c4 and 1. b4. Maybe, we're starting to see it already. 1. e4 definitely is not "best by test" and Fisher was also wrong in claiming there's a very limited number of "correct moves". 1. e4 tends towards a dry equality, when the tactics are through.