memorization predominance?

Once or twice I tried to begin playing chess, but what seemed to me(I'm not sure yet) the predominance of theory memorization over strategy or tactics kept me away. I didn't want to use 80-90% of my chess time memorizing positions.
Also, I got the impression that evolving in chess meant going in the direction of a memorized game, since I could find games played to the 30th move without leaving the book. It just didn't make any sense to me to play a game which would be become less fun the better you got, which would mean that learning to play better would spoil the game.
Ok, this was my impression then, but after reading some more opinions, it seems that I may be wrong and I'm thinking about trying to get into chess once more. Anyway, before doing this I would like to hear opinions of people here as to the extend memorization importance in chess. After attaining a good playing level, do we still have space to improvisation, to creativity in terms of tactics and strategy, or do the game become pre-programed and the winner will be who master all the lines of the positions showing up on the board?

I have no idea where you picked up this misguided and downright incorrect view of chess. There is minimal memorization all the way up to and past master level- I perhaps know a few opening lines, up to move 7 or 8.

Then again, it perhaps depends on what you deem memorisation. When you do tactics problems, you are effectively learning the patterns that can arise, which might be deemed memorisation.

But no matter how much this comes into play, chess is all about improvisation- at least my games seem to be! Nobody plays like a robot, and the game certainly does not come down to who has memorised the most lines, no matter what level you play at.

I've found that the more I learn about playing chess the more complicated it becomes. It truly is a game for all ages and skill levels. Sure, if you want to reach the top levels of chess play you will have to memorize a number of openings and endgames. For most chess players, myself included, that just isn't a feasible goal.

Think of it as playing a musical instrument. You have to memorize some things in order to play the instrument at all. You have to memorize more things to play different songs or styles. As you get better there are even more techniques to learn. Is it work? Yes and no. It takes effort, but all along the way you're playing music and enjoying yourself. Chess is the same. You shouldn't look at it as having to memorize things in order to get better. Rather, you're memorizing things because you're getting better. You're studying an art because you enjoy it, not because you have to. And all along the way you're enjoying chess games. You may never play Carnegie Hall, you may never play in the World Championship. But you'll be having fun either way.

I agree that memorization is not to be treated as some type of trick or shortcut. Memory capacity is a mental ability as legitimate as any other, but music will always allow creativity and improvisation, since, even if it does need precision for technique, for other musical aspects there is plenty of room for variations. I mean, a determinate chess position can present a single best move; that doesn't happen in music, there isn't that single best note, since there are a lot of subjective aspects in play.

The problem with memorization in chess is not that it must be considered a minor trick, but if a position presents a line of play that is proved to be better and players memorize it, you have no space for improvisation and you kind of nullify the other abilities. It would be like saying to a musician: 'always play this melodical line after that other one. It's the better way... period!'

Having the nature of a logic problem, chess must present a better move to any position, but it seems above human capacity to solve this problem as a whole. When I asked about the role of memorization, I was really wanting to know about its predominance. Sure I know memorization has a role in chess, as in any other activity, but to what extend memorization becomes so predominant as to suppress the space of other abilities on the higher levels? Do improvisation has a whole on this levels? Or will grand masters play according to the memorized lines, like a musician that can't play anything outside the score lines he has memorized without being penalized.

One thing is a musician memorizing patterns and combining them in a structured way; another is a musician playing the whole structure from memory without the freedom to make differently.

Anyway, there you still have place for creativity... no joke. I have experienced it.

In chess, if memorization has predominant role, once discovered, the best move can't be changed, even in rehearsals.

Yes, but in music, you don't sit down and stare at a piece of sheet music until you have it memorized. You memorize it by playing it over and over and over, until playing it becomes automatic.

Chess is the same way. Sitting down and trying to memorize the book lines to the Sicilian Najdorf will be ineffective for most people. You memorize it by doing it over and over and over. Chess, unlike music, has a built in reward/punishment system. If you miss a note in a song, few will notice, and just go on. If you miss a move in the Najdorff, you are in trouble.

A booked up player with an amazing memory who has memorized reams of theory but who possesses no grasp of tactics or strategy is going to lose...alot.  Understanding trumps memorization because sooner or later you are going to reach a middlegame.  

If you had the practical experience of going and playing in tournaments you would see that at the club level things more often then not get out of book pretty quickly.  In any opening I know I'm out of book by move 10 at the absolute latest.

Granted if you are a titled player things are a bit different, but for most of us mere mortals that is never going to be a real concern.

Greetings,

     I believe there is room in chess for the tactical minded and there is room for the theoretical minded. Who can deny the brilliance of tactical play in games by Tal, as a for instance ? Many are those high level players that openly state they prefer engaging strategic battles with combinations and tactical play to theory.

  Of course some theory is required, but its the dazzling tactical play that has my attention. Consider this..... even at a high level, many tactical opportunities are overlooked. And so finding the combination or sac that will win is still a big part of the game.

  Whatever your style of play,

  Enjoy,

Thanks for all the answers.

Teshuvah, I think chess960 to be a great idea, but there is something more to the traditional chess than being a better or worse variation, which is the fact that it is a universal reference and, as such, one is able to play and discuss it anywhere in the world, since chess960 may still encounter some resistance. If it were as well accepted as the traditional version, I would go with it.

Ricardo, I watched some games by Tall, some years ago, and my idealized idea of chess comes near to what I saw then: a player taking risks and being creative. But, at least at the time, it seemed to me that this style was an exception, fruit of brilliantism. As I stated, I never went into chess seriously, but it seemed that most players wouldn't assume the risks involved in keeping the tension for so long. In the games I watched, he kept the tension for a great number of moves in such a way that if things went wrong, he would be in trouble. Are there other players with such a risky style?

 Greetings Nettomb,

    Yes there are some...a good one to start with...

Zvjaginsev (2675), a modern russian GM...Please have a look at his game from the Rus-China Summit of 2006 (13-08-2006) against Zhang. Look at the board by move 12.....he is more than creative... spellbinding is the word. Awesome ! He is consistently unpredictable, using tactics of all kinds including positional squeezing and powerful pawn structures. I think you will enjoy reviewing his games... expect the unexpected ! 

  Studying the games of Zvjaginsev will open new frontiers for you.

 Enjoy,

 I agree R&O. Understanding + Memorization = Knowledge. If I ask "what is 2+2?" do you have to calculate the answer or do you just know it? Does the fact that you just know the answer mean that you do not undertsand why the answer is 4? This is knowledge. Undertsanding just means I can work out the answer, but if I know something I have it at my mental finger tips ready to be used.

 Nettomb,

   When Tal was in the hospitol, Bobby Fischer visited him. Many are those who respect and admire Tal....surely one of the greatest of the great...his games are of timeless beauty.

  All of the best,

That's probably a better analogy than the music one I came up with. I was also trying to promote the idea that it may actually be fun to study and memorize various aspects of chess. I'd like to be good at chess someday but it's much more important that I really love the game and love learning the game.

I'll never be very good at guitar. My fingers are getting too old to learn new tricks very easily. But I love playing guitar and I love learning new songs and techniques. I guess it's not the ability that really matters but the passion.

I just wish chess came as easy to me. 

UNtil you are over 2000 you dont have to worry about memorizing much. Tactics is the biggest part of the game.

Study a few openings you like. Not much beyond move 8 or so. Study endgames at least a bit aweek. Then pnd the tactics. This alone could get to to around 2k. with enough work.

Not any real memorizing at all. Tactics is jsut doing puzzles over and over agian. until themes set in. No memorizing your brain will just see it after you have done enough.

Heck there are even GMS that do crappy in the opening and still do well. ITs up to you to decide what type of player you are.

GM Julio Granda as white was met with 1.d4 d5 2. c4 Nc6, and then went into a long think as he had not seen it before.

From Chess Monthly c. 1994. He was about top 20 at the time as well.

 Yes, except this is the very definition of memorization... Doing something over and over until it sets in.

I never meant to imply that chess comes easy to me. I'm no better, and hopefully no worse, than any average player. I first learned chess almost forty years ago. Sometimes I studied moderately hard, sometimes I only played occasionally, sometimes I didn't play at all. Over all that time I have never grown tired of chess nor been bored when studying it. That was the point I was trying to make. I enjoy the studying and the playing. If I become good at chess then that's great. If I don't become very good I will still have enjoyed studying and playing.

Oh -- I meant as easy as music does.

It's actually the difference between knowing what/how and knowing why.