Demystifying Chess: Debunking Common Misconceptions about the Game

I wanted to reach out and discuss a topic that I find fascinating: chess misconceptions. It's surprising how many misconceptions exist about this captivating game. Some people believe that chess is only for geniuses or that it's a dull and slow-paced activity. Others think luck plays a role or that memorizing openings is the key to success. Let's challenge these misconceptions and uncover the truth about chess. I'm curious to hear your thoughts on this matter. What are some common misconceptions about chess that you would like to debunk? 

The most common misconceptions exist among non-players... and that is

#1 chess skill is equivalent to intelligence (definitely false, there have been 12 year old GMs. Even with genius level IQ a 12 year old is only as smart as an average adult. An average intellect is sufficient for GM)

#2 the winner of a chess game must have calculated more moves ahead (no, sometimes you can see exactly what your opponent will do, but it doesn't matter because your position is permanently worse)

#3 the best players in the world are old men with long grey beards (no, the average ago of the top 10 is roughly 30 years old)

It's dull and slow paced for certain personality types... some types are not necessarily unintelligent. One of the smartest people in my class (20 years ago) thought chess was "the most boring game." He became a literature professor.

Of course to me (and millions of others) it's not dull or slow paced at all.

Chess is a game with no hidden information, so it's more common for people to error on the other side, i.e. they believe there is no luck in chess.

The truth is that while the rules describe a game with no luck, any game does in fact contain luck whenever the players are humans. There is luck in things such as "knowing enough to get into trouble but not enough to get out." There's luck in pairings, and luck (in the sense that random chance is luck) in your and your opponent's condition on the day of the competition...

... it's very well know to anyone who has competed in chess or otherwise that sometimes the worse player or team wins.

Luck certainly plays a role in tournament pairings.

Do you get the White or Black pieces against your most dangerous rivals?

The player himself has no control over that.

Now we're moving past non-players and into the realm of beginners.

Yes, beginners are attracted to openings. It's appealing for multiple reasons. First of all there's the allure of being immediately applicable. For example if you study a pawn endgame, and lose on move 20, well, it feels like a waste. But if you study what to do on move 2, it feels like you're improving. Openings are also appealing because memorization is easy. It's much harder to understand a strategic concept and correctly apply it than it is to memorize dozens of moves.

Unfortunately memorization without understanding is rather pointless, which comes as a rude awakening as soon as your opponent plays a non-book move, but also the opening is the most forgiving phase of the game. If Carlsen gave me pawn odds from the opening I'd lose every game, but if he gave me pawn odds starting from a balanced king and pawn endgame, I might win every game.

Yes, only non-players and fools argue against luck existing in chess.

Unfortunately there are many children and fools who play chess, so there are always a few who fail to understand this, and make ridiculous arguments.

A misconception that I've seen NMs make (@reb comes to mind).

They say endgames are not very useful.

These morons (@reb included) will say that a games are typically won or lost by move 15 in the sense that whoever has the advantage at that time is likely to win the game.

Sure, if you play trash and/or sharp openings that's true.

However there's a different way of playing. If you play strategically and sound openings then you're likely to have a balanced position on move 15. When that happens knowing the endgame does more than help you in technical positions, it helps you choose the correct middlegame plans. Indeed, learning the endgame enhances your strategic play, and in the course of studying and solving endgame position, you also enhance your intuition for piece activity and visualization / calculation.

One reason that beginners are attracted to this "Learn opening X and win !!!" idea is that it offers a quick and cheap fix for deep, systemic problems (mostly due to lack of experience).

Naturally, it's just an illusion. There is no royal road to Knowledge.

The higher rated a person is, the more it can teach concepts, because the more you're aware of.

When a noob-cake memorizes, it teaches them literally nothing. Nothing at all.

But when you, @marqumax memorize, sure, you can learn things.

So here's one a lot of people may disagree with me about...

I disagree with the classic advice that playing over GM games is essential to improvement for beignning players.

I disagree because as I said in #12 above, the more you know, the more you get out of it... meaning beginners get nothing out of it.

If you're going to play over GM games below an 1800 online rating, then they should be annotated. Otherwise you're wasting your time.

There was an old book from the 1960s (?) called "Chess Master vs Chess Amateur", which had 25 games played between titled players (IMs, GMs) versus average club players. All games annotated by (Former World Chess Champion) Max Euwe.

I found that book quite instructive, back when I was 1400-1600 strength (OTB, not chess.com).

While it is true that luck plays a minimal role in chess compared to games like poker or roulette, it would be unfair to dismiss the notion of luck entirely in chess. Luck can manifest itself in various ways during a game, even though it may not be as significant as in other games of chance.

For example, the outcome of a game can be influenced by factors such as the order of moves, the specific opening variations chosen by the players, or even the psychological state of the players during the game. Additionally, external factors like distractions, time pressure, or physical discomfort can also impact a player's performance.

However, it is important to note that chess is primarily a game of skill and strategy, where players must rely on their knowledge, experience, and decision-making abilities to succeed. The element of luck in chess is usually overshadowed by the long-term trends of skill and strategy, making it a game where the better player tends to win more consistently over time.

#14 @blueemu Thanks for the recommendation, I signed up with "Internet Archive" online for free, and am able to checkout and read a second release from 1974 in which the author changed out 7 beginner games to make it more useful. It looks very interesting, just started reading it. A reviewer from Amazon.com Greg L (agreed with you and gave a further recommendation) here's a partial quote from his review of your book recommendation. "This and the companion volume, The Road to Chess Mastery, are the most useful general chess books I have ever read. Each book provides 25 games between a master and an amateur. As you advance through the chapters, the amateur players are stronger and stronger, so that their errors are more subtle. In each game, the authors start by describing the lessons to be learned in this game, and then they comment on each move of the whole game, making it easy to understand how the master identifies and takes advantages of the amateur's weak moves. This is a great learning format."

I learned to play from "The Road to Chess Mastery". The best feature of these books is that they do not explain positions and moves by showing different moves but use words to explain what the players are trying to do (or need to do, or failed to do).

For a more advanced player (1600 to 2200, perhaps) I would recommend "Pawn Power in Chess" by Hans Kmoch.

BE WARNED!

This is not a book for half-hearted, limp-wristed dilettantes! This is a book for knuckle-dragging, hairy-backed MEN!

Kmoch is a madman, but also a genius. He begins the book by inventing a new language (!) to describe chess positions, and especially to describe the finer nuances of a Pawn formation. You must LEARN that new language, or the rest of the book will be incomprehensible to you.

And I do mean incomprehensible. You might as well try to read cuniform tablets.

If you are sufficiently persistent (the phrase "bloody-minded stubborness" springs to mind) you will be amply rewarded for your efforts. This book alone must have added 300 points or more to my playing strength... although of course it took months to actually convert that new strength into rating points.

chess players dont shower

this one is true though i personally havent showered in weeks

Well, you see, chess players have discovered that soap and water can actually make the pieces too slippery, leading to accidental moves and chaotic chess matches. So, to maintain the integrity of the game, they have taken a solemn oath to never step foot in a shower. They may be a little pungent, but hey, sacrifices must be made for the sake of strategy!