Is Chess anything more than memorization?

GoGophers
nighteyes1234 wrote:
GoGophers wrote:

Um, are you on shrooms or something?

 

Oh...I thought you were leaving...but you are staying.

I know, it's kinda like that hot girlfriend that you can't stand being around or talking to, but you just can't bring yourself to leave her, no matter how annoying she is.

Elroch
Morphys-Revenge wrote:
congrandolor wrote:

Remember when Alekhine played vs a hustler in a park and was mated after 25 moves. -"This is impossible, I can calculate ten moves in advance", said the world champion, -"How many are you able to?" -"Only one", said the hustler, -"but is always the best"

That was Reti that said that.

Nah, Capablanca.

kindaspongey

https://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/movesahead.html

SKIfreek05

Chess is fun

kaukasar

Here is what GM Yasser Seirawan has to say about this topic:

bong711

If you study thousands of Master's games, it may look you neither understand or memorize a lot. But your Instincts and Intuition in finding good moves are strong.

Prometheus_Fuschs
Conflagration_Planet escribió:

Computers can indeed beat humans at chess, but it's rapid calculation instead of memorization.

They do need considerable amounts of RAM to work properly.

Prometheus_Fuschs
congrandolor escribió:

Remember when Karpov lost to a Moscow taxi driver in 30 moves. "How did you do that?", asked the champion. "Easy, I was told the goal of the game was capture the tallest piece, I just do that"

Hmmm, sounds fishy.

Prometheus_Fuschs
1_a31-0 escribió:

a mensa level IQ is what exactly? 

 

130 <=

Prometheus_Fuschs
GoGophers escribió:
SeniorPatzer wrote:

Mensa IQ and only a 700 rated player?

Ai - yi - yi.  

I think it proves my point.  There's a good chance that I have had more natural intelligence than the people who have beaten me and caused my score to get so low, yet they beat me with techniques memorized from playing and watching youtube.  Is that not the exact point I was trying to make?

You need both memory and skill (for example, in spotting tactics, calculating and being aware of the whole board). At your level you need more tactical skills, when you "exhaust" that, you then proceed to memorize openings, very specific traps and tactics and so on.

Prometheus_Fuschs
GoGophers escribió:

I'll agree with the "learning how not to lose" part.  I'm being matched against people now who are in the 700's and they rarely make the same mistakes the people in the 600's do, and it's much tougher for me, so as soon as I get into the 700's, I go back down to the 600's.  Which is depressing.  Why?  Because as soon as I learn how to deal with these people, I'll get matched against people with an 800 rating and I'll start losing all over again.

 

There's just too many pieces to deal with.

There isn't that much of a difference in 100 elo points.

nikaashpuriwh

Chess is not just about memorization, it is about understanding, thinking, and planning. It is important to know typical patterns, games, and positions. However, it is equally important to have a structured thought process to apply this knowledge in chess positions. 

One such process is described here - https://www.chess.com/blog/nikaashpuriwh/data-driven-thinking-applying-the-chicago-approach-to-chess 

GoGophers

Thanks guys, I realize I was wrong to think that way.  I think the quote above from kaukasar from GM Yasser Seirawan hits the nail on the head.