Is Chess anything more than memorization?

Is Tal the guy that would "play for the crowd"?  Again, maybe it gets different when you get to that next level of being a master.  But at first, I would always get caught with whatever move it is where the person brings their knight down to get ready to fork my king and rook or something, and I wouldn't worry, because I'd see that if they put their knight into that forking square, I can capture with either king or queen.  But I wouldn't notice the effect of their bishop being their to prevent my king/queen from taking.  That right there, a person with a score of 700, doing that to me, is purely memorization of some trick they learned on youtube.  Then after getting it done to me a bunch of times, I started looking out for it and now it doesn't happen.  That's nothing but memorization, is it not?

even for patzers like us -- if u dont like the game, you wont do well. 

first, again, there's no proven correlation between chess and iq

second, experienced in what sense of the word? as in memorization, lots of tournaments, studying classics? really, what matters isn't how long you've been playing, rather how you've been playing. 

third, generally yes, that would be the case with completely new players, but let's say einstein had played for a year, and forest gump for 2 years. in that case, if einstein loved the game* and studied it well, i think einstein would be better. his growth would be 10x that of forest gumps.

*NOTE -- its unclear whether einstein likes chess. He famously said that lasker could have been his assistant or as famous as him but wasted his life away pushing wooden pieces on a wooden board. 

yes but thats only one aspect of it. once you get the foundation like tactics, basic openings, (in music's case, this would be knowing the notes, knowing the music) then chess starts becoming less about memorization. 

This is the answer I'm probably looking for!  I don't have the foundation, and I'm not really interested in developing one, besides the Scandinavian defense.  Otherwise, most of my accomplishments in life are NOT the result of me working harder than my peers, it's just my natural talent coming through.  Not to sound arrogant at all, just that that is how I have done things.  I try something, and if it's easy to me, like math and computer programming, then I continue with it.  If it's hard, I quit.  So far chess has been a miserable experience for me and I wish I never stumbled upon it.  If someone else can work harder at this than I do, and that makes them better than me, then this is definitely NOT the game for me.  I want to win with natural talent, not hard work.

thats not what i was getting at, but okay. a passion for the game should be your incentive to work hard. maybe your lacking incentive. isnt that what separates the elon musks from the straight A-er in highschool?

you do realize you'll have to work hard at something even if you are naturally talented. i mean, if you have a comp programming job or something, you'll still have to work hard to complete your projects well and stuff. 

I like the Einstein quote!  And I feel the same way, just a complete waste of time.  What's the end goal anyways?  Maybe make money if you're as good as Magnus Carlsen, otherwise you're like an insect in the rain forest - either you catch the next prey that comes by, or you are the next prey.

Yes, I am a computer programmer for work, but the line of thinking comes naturally to me.  For example, as a kid or even a college student, it would be extremely difficult and time consuming for me to write a 3 page paper.  But liberal arts majors can crank out a three page paper while waiting in line for coffee.  Similarly, I can do some really good software, but rarely if ever do I feel like I was challenged.  Me doing math/computer stuff is like a good athlete running on a treadmill.  And I'd agree on your Elon Musk comparison - maybe I could have done more if I had initiative, but I was more than happy to take the easy road to a well-paying career doing what I do now, as opposed to getting a PhD and trying to do AI stuff for Google.  I'd rather take the easy road (my job now) versus the harder road (Google).

i didnt quote it verbatim, but i get your point.

for some its a hobby, for others its a bit more. i couldnt imagine my life without chess. i got to visit so many places just to play chess (eg mumbai for world youth) and meet so many awesome, smart people. chess has also taught me the importance of hard work. without chess, not only would i not have many experiences, i also wouldnt be half as smart as i am now. i remember when i first started in 7th grade i was that kid who always played on their laptop (video games) until like 3 AM, getting by school with as little studying as possible. now, ive worked with some of google's companies, am in the process of patenting an invention, etc ...just one year later!

Actually a good question. I am trying to crack 2300 right now and would have to say that it's currently 80% memorizing countless positions and opening variations. The higher you get the more you need to memorize.

thats understandable, mindset is key, but also there is a certain amount of risk involved dedicating your entire life to working at google. also, there are pros and cons to both. working at google in undoubtedly more time consuming, and could give you less time to hang out and enjoy life

i beg to disagree, but thats maybe because i play janky stuff like 1. a3

So 1_a31-0, what would be the point of me playing chess against you?  It would be over in your first 5 or so moves, right?  And how much pain and misery would it take me to get to your level, just to try and compete?  All that for just a game.  Texas hold'em makes it more fair - even a beginner has a chance in cards!

Welcome to the conversation!  And this is my problem, no way I could play against you.  But if you were a much better basketball player than me, I might win here and there just because I hit some lucky shots.  Or if we were boxing, maybe I get a punch through and beat you 1/10 times.  But if I'm 650 and you're 2200, you win 100% of the time, and 100% of the time it'll be checkmate before I even know it's checkmate.  Like a spider sucked off the wall by a lizard, the spider barely gets to process what's going on before it's game over.

its not competing, its more what chess teaches you, imo. like i said, chess really taught me hard work and commitment. hard work and commitment just changed my whole outlook on life, and opened the door to so many opportunities. (bottom of post 47)

Playing chess online teaches me almost nothing though.  Even after I lose, I'll go to the game analysis to try and figure out my bad moves.  Then the computer will tell me I should have moved a certain way instead of what I did, but more often than not, I can't come close to understanding why.  Or it'll tell me such and such a move was a "missed win", but I'll look at the board and in no way can I see how that would have lead to victory.

Maybe if you get a chess tutor to guide you through until your score is 2000, then you might have a chance at this nonsense.  Otherwise, it's like telling me that watching paint dry is a good way to improve focus and concentration.

you are right! ive never agreed with a post more

in other words, YGNR

@younggirlnicerack

please get off this forum, its not a troll post

(to @1andthen78)

Not IQ 178 again...

Has anyone identified a location and specific quoted sentence for this wasted-time thing?

"Emanuel Lasker was undoubtedly one of the most interesting people I came to know in my later years. ... I am not a chess expert and therefore not in a position to marvel at the force of mind revealed in his greatest intellectual achievement - in the field of chess. I must even confess that the struggle for power and the competitive spirit expressed in the form of an ingenious game have always been repugnant to me. I met Emanuel Lasker at the house of my old friend, Alexander Moszkowski, and came to know him well in the course of many walks in which we exchanged opinions about the most varied questions. ... it seemed to me that chess was more a profession for him than the real goal of his life. ... the chess playing of a master ties him to the game, fetters his mind and shapes it to a certain extent so that his internal freedom and ease, no matter how strong he is, must inevitably be affected. In our conversations and in the reading of his philosophical books, I always had that feeling. ... I liked Lasker's immovable independence, a rare human attribute, in which respect almost all, including intelligent people, are mediocrities. ... I am thankful for the hours of conversation which this ever striving, independent, simple man granted me." - Einstein (1952)

I suspect that many activities are such that the degree of success reflects a combination of hard work and talent. You are free to renounce work to the degree that it is possible for your life style, but, is it very common for a Physics Nobel Prize winner to describe the achievement as not involving work? Some seem to revere the skillful interaction between talent and work.

Mensa IQ and only a 700 rated player?

Ai - yi - yi.