chess is memorization

Chess is nothing more than patterns and responses. Someone who knows the correct move for every possible situation, is a chess "genius"

I assume "perfect moves" are valid, if we leave out engines. From a human perspective, it can be achieved through study. Even a [EDIT-4K]if provided with the right resources and he/she is directed to ONLY study the specific materials, could reach the levels of a grandmaster.

Not because they are geniuses, or that they suddenly gained deep understanding of the game but from memorization of every "perfect move" in every possible situation.

Chess does not require a genius, it requires someone who has, either out of hatred or boredom idk how to refer to it. Or a genuine enjoyment of the game (whether it is genuine can also be questioned) dedicates many years of their life to chess knowledge to memory.

Is not the one who can recall 70000 positions in chess simply better than the one who can recall merely 10000? They do not win through greater intelligence than the other, but because they can respond accurately through consistent study or repetition of moves.

Thus, i think, not know, chess is about being familiar with moves, not intelligence.

a harsh and incorrect view of the game. It makes since you would say that. You’re at the level where you’ve learned the principles, learned some tactics, some openings, and basic endgames and now you think struggle to improve. You struggle knowing what to do in the middle game and think it’s because you havnt memorized every move. Memorizing won’t help you, you arnt a machine, you need to understand. The next step for you in the game is understanding imbalances, the gateway to plans. With plans there are options, with options there is calculation, with calculation there is direction. It isn’t memorization. It’s understanding, you just lack understanding, and the understanding of the understanding. You must study imbalances. “How to Reassess Your Chess” 4th edition will help you improve, not through memorization, but by understanding.

You are right though. The winner of the chess game is not the person who has more intelligence, that’s just not how games work. The winner of the chess game is the better player. The one who knows more, understands more, sees more. You will not be a top chess player without a dedication to the game, no matter how much intelligence or natural talent, this is true for any game.

Chess extends too far in so many directions for anyone to memorize every possible perfect move.

Good players don't try to do this, either - they strive to recognize the most important factors of the current position, and then come up with a plan of action to either improve the strengths of their own position, or to attack the weaknesses in their opponent's position.

There's certainly some memorization involved at the basic level (you have to memorize how the pieces move, and you'll inevitably memorize the opening lines that you favor the most, and basic tactical patterns), but I'd say most of chess is about thinking ahead - evaluating how the board will be in a few moves time.

This can be quite easy and simple, if the tactics are straightforward. Or it can be quite challenging and confusing, if the position is complex ...

This sounds like a "cry for help". Listen to us, grasshopper, and we will take you by the hand and guide you to the promised land. We will dry your tears and comfort you with soothing music from pan flutes as you go through your losses with our avuncular teaching yet kind attitudes. Peace, little one.

"even a retard".

Ah now come on.

Retard is a really offensive word for somebody with a mental condition. Speaks volumes about your personality.

Is there anything in life that does not require the use of your memory, effort and learning? I think you have a false conception of a what a "genius" is. You seem to think a genius is someone that does not need to put in a lot of effort to be good at something. There is this trope of the lazy slacker that can get A+ on there tests without studying. This person is not a genius, they are a just a big fish in a small pond. I promise you that anyone that is at the top of their craft has dedicated a tremendous amount of time, effort, study and practice to get there. Those who are lazy will find out quick just how useless their "genius" is.

Computers have been working day and night to find the best move for an unimaginably large number of unique positions, and they still are not even close. You seriously think a human could just know and memorize all of the perfect moves in any given position? Ridiculous, you don't know what chess is or how it works.

Absolutely wrong. Chess is more a game of understanding than memory.

in the recent world championship match, there were games in which Gukesh or Liren made an uncommon move in the opening. The commentators then would discuss in depth the impact on future positions of having this move played rather than other moves. No one had memorized the positions, since the moves were new.

What makes the players world championship contenders is their understanding of how one move can impact the future play. And what makes the commentators Grandmasters is their ability to analyze such nuances.

if someone thinks that chess mastery is nothing but memorization, they are announcing to the world that they have little understanding of the game.

So you are you trying to tell me when Hikaru beats titled opponents with the BongCloud™ it wasn't because he meticulously over decades memorized all 70000™ possible positions and lines of BongCloud™ Theory? 

Litterature is no more than letters, music is nothing more than notes, thought are no more than electrical impulses in a fatty grey matter and..

I'm glad to see someone else was thinking the same and I stopped reading when I got to that. I can think of scenes from There's Something About Mary and The Inbetweeners where use of that word is done with comedic effect but the use of it here by the OP does indeed speak volumes.

i agree, feels unplayable to get a bad position out of the opening.

Oh yes. Memorizing the correct move in a quadrillion times a quadrillion times a quadrillion different positions is completely doable.

Next project: getting to Mars by jumping really high. All it takes is some practice. Anyone can do it.

You have mistaken my concept of a "genius", i do not believe the term genius; a person who is exceptionally intelligent, can be applied to chess as it can in other fields.

I should clarify, my idea of a "chess genius" would be someone who the average person on this site looks up to, a GM for example, not in the sense that they effortlessly win every chess game.

Regarding what is said, when we speak about the top chess players of today, they do not necessarily create any new strategies in the middle of the game, they simply recall patterns they have already gone through or studied. So what makes them better rather than their ability to recall and memorize that which they have already done?

In its whole i said, that chess does not require immense intellect but memorization and recall (in top levels).

You are the prime example of why chess does not require highly intellectual people, you say "computers have been working day and night to find the best move for an unimaginably large number of unique positions" but wtf does this contribute to my initial text?

A human, a gm, does not attempt to perform algorithmic processes rather they recognize familiar patterns through situations they have already gone through.

Recognizing, i say RECOGNIZING patterns can be learned, you don't need to be a machine to do so, any top chess player RECOGNIZES the best moves in a specific situation.

So no, i do not think it's ridiculous to believe a person could reach top levels of chess through memorization and the study of patterns which leads to recognition and identification when performed.

There are more possible chess positions than there are atoms in the universe. Do you have more thoughts than there are atoms in the universe? You must be a supercomputer.

memorizing every “perfect move” is not possible for a mete human, not to mention a mere best supercomputer on the planet.

Stockfish is pretty good, but it uses algorithms to calculate the value of a position. It does not use minmax to find the real perfect moves.


Let’s pretend humans have memorized the entire game tree of chess.
Every position is either drawn, guaranteed winning, or dead lost.
There are still some choices to make.
In a drawn position, there are multiple moves you can make to hold the draw, each giving it opponent a different number of options to hold the draw.
You can make things harder for your opponent, but it won’t work if they are perfect.

But, if a perfect person plays an imperfect person, the perfect person really has to think.
Will my opponent play like stockfish? A 1000 Elo? Moving randomly? Moving randomly but the king and queen are less likely?
Depending on that, the “best move” is different, it depends on which move mages your opponent more likely to blunder.

Let’s say there’s a position in which you have 2 good moves.
One move lets your opponent win if they find the right, obscure move, but you will win otherwise. The second move draws instantly.
A perfect player would use minmax and play the draw. If you know your opponent, then maybe the risk is worth it.

It's interesting that you chose the "middle of the game" as the phase where you believe new strategies aren't created, as the middlegame is arguably where we find the most unique positions of all ... thus, it's the phase of the game where players need to create their own ideas, the most.