memorization predominance?

 If you write the portuguese word "saudades" 50 times and I tell you how to pronounce it you may have it memorized, but you still don't know what it means. You cannot use it in a sentence properly. I think to know something you not only have to have it "memorized" but you must also understand it. I believe that memorizing tactics, openings and anything else is facilitated by understanding. In the Scheveningen and Najdorf simply knowing that Black plays 5... a6 is useless unless you understand the motives behind it. Black may want to play b7-b5-b4 at some point to kick the white knight to a poor square and weaken White's e4 point. He may also want to place his bishop on b7 to increase pressure on e4 and on White's king side. Knowing this helps a player remember that 5... a6 is important and it reinforces the memorization. It also helps the player relate it to simple tactical ideas like removing the guard. Kick the knight and take the pawn...

In the context of this thread it's clearly not in reference to that type of memory.  Rote recital is what is contemplated in the original post.

That's all fine and well, but this thread isn't about neuroscience and the different types of memory, it's about the difference in approach between rote memorization, i.e. knowing what move to play, and tactical and strategical understanding -- knowing why to play a particular move.

To the original poster, I'd offer the suggestion that tactical study -- in particular puzzles and tools like the Tactics Trainer here at chess.com -- offer a much more rewarding (fun even) curriculum that does not rely on rote recital of lines and will provide you with a better understanding of why you're playing. 

Richie_and_oprah's not incorrect in saying that pattern recognition and associative memory are ultimately what you're working on by doing this, but I think everyone else understood by the context of your original post that what you meant by memory was the mechanical retrieval of lines that had been memorized verbatim.

If you choose a simple opening repertoire, perhaps one based on a system rather than one with a lot of sharp theory behind it, you can minimize the memorization in favour of thematic ideas and get through the opening phase and into the middle and end-games which are much more dynamic and fluid in their demands on your memory.  Work on your tactics, and get some endgame theory under your belt (which is arguably more a combination of pattern recognition and memorization) and you'll find your play improves dramatically.

Not until you're up at Richie's level of play do you really need to worry about opening preparation based on voluminous memorization of lines so don't let the idea that it's necessary at every level turn you off of a wonderful game.

My intent isn't to refute anything you've said, richie -- you're clearly playing at a higher level than I am, and seem better versed in neuroscience, however:

If it is the memorization itself (in the original post's context, of course) that is turning the original poster away from the game altogether, as he indicated, then the suggestion that he must submit himself to the drudgery of rote memorization if he wants to play the game is simply not constructive.  It's not necessary in much depth in order to obtain a basic understanding of the game and its concepts, and even an intermediate level of play.  I say that if the risk is that he will give the game up altogether if this is the only way to take it up then it can mostly be taken as superfluous at least for the time being.

One must first have the desire to play before the desire to improve even has meaning and given the choice between mastery of the game and enjoyment of the game I will choose enjoyment every time lest my mastery be an empty achievement.

And not everyone needs to seek mastery of the game.  I'd hate to risk turning someone off of it altogether by suggesting that this is the only worthy goal of taking it up and as such the memorization of opening lines from day one is unavoidable.  There is enjoyment to be had at every level of play -- let's not suck all of the fun out of it, particularly for someone who has a stated aversion to rote memorization.

You are using "memorize" as a synonym for learn and it's clearly not intended that way in the original post richie.  Again, we're talking about rote memorization versus actually developing an understanding.  No-one's soft selling the complexity, and no-one said developing an understanding would be easy, but you certainly won't do it on memorization alone -- you need to learn why, not just what and how.

As to the original question, there is, and will always be, significant opportunity for improvisation and creativity in the game.  It's simply too complex to be mastered by memorization alone -- even by computers.  See this thread for some perspective on that:

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/the-future-of-computer-chess?page=1

No... you've deliberately ignored the context of "memorization" in the original post and in an effort to prove yourself smarter than everyone else here have (presumably deliberately, again) entirely missed the point of the question that was being posed and risked turning someone off of a game that has so much more to offer than just rote memorization.

Not only is that disingenuous, it's downright dickish.

To the original poster:

If you have made it this far, you have probably sifted through a bunch of garbage by now.  The clear and simple answer is NO, relying on memorizing lines is not important to virtually all chess players, barring the extremely well advanced (titled and higher).  There is a misconception, because some players are 'bookish' that you must be bookish to compete with them.  On the contrary, such players are usually fairly easy to compete with by simply playing an off-book move or two. (cue 300 thread replies about why bookish players will exploit off-book moves - not usually true).  I've been studying chess merely for 8-10 months or so, and have not spent any time memorizing opening lines.  I have looked up many of my games in my database after the fact to see where I went wrong in the opening and what the proper continuation should have been, and I try to remember that.  But my concentrated study is positional understanding, endgame, tactics, and developing my calculation ability through master game analysis (by covering up the moves) or solitaire chess, and I am still growing in understanding and skill (currently around 1600 level at age 29).  I feel certainly I could reach 1800 without any further training techniques, possibly 1900 or 2000.  1800-1900 is a big jump it seems like.

I too, have largely eschewed brute-force memorization in favour of principles and tactical pattern recognition.  Not entirely, but largely.  It will not be a hindrance until you reach a fairly high level of play, but it will also not hurt you as long as you do it in a deliberate and focused manner.

this is why many people believe that the future of chess is in chess960...

Kerplow:

"You dont' do rote learning first or you'll have a bunch of idiots."

Actually, rote learning I believe is how education used to begin in schools in the U.S. - memorizing multiplication tables for example -  the sort of thing they don't do anymore.  Now its all creativity and generic "problem solving" ability and teamwork and abstraction and high-minded concepts, etc.  But no actual work.  "Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration."  Everyone who talks about the Sicilian says you basically just have to do a boat-load of memorization.

I find this idea. But with time memorization becomes a habit .

You can do without memorizing. Just play a lot, read a lot, and you'll randomly pick up a lot of stuff on the way and be a 2000 player with some strengths and some glaring weaknesses.

Or you do serious, systematic study with a lot of memorization in all areas of the game, keep it up for a number of years, and become a lot stronger.

Most people feel that the second option is no fun, and chess is recreation so being fun is most important. I'm one of them. But picking up stuff at random is not the best way to become as strong as possible.

It is a fact that memorization has its place in chess learning at all levels. A beginner, say in the class E-D range will begin by learning simple king and pawn endgames. First he will learn the theory. Once he undertsands the concepts of opposition and key squares he should then begin by doing positions over and over again at a relatively fast pace until is becomes second nature. No matter what you call it, this is memorization. The same is true with tactics. The beginner should learn how pins, x-rays and other themes work and then begin going through a set of several hundred positions over and over until the themes are fixed in the mind. Creativity is not hindered by this. It can be enhanced by it. Creativity in chess is taking something you know, a strategic theme for example, and approaching it in a new way. But it would be impossible for you to even consider how to approach the idea if you were not familiar enough with it to even see it as a consideration in the first place.

How can you understand where a game is going to go if you have not seen enough similar games in the past to help you chart the way? Yes, it is a concept but how could you ever hope to apply that concept if you have not been exposed to its application repeatdly? If you don't memorize certain techniques you will have to work them out over the board and this will be too hard for you because first you have to discover the idea and then you have to figure out for yourself the technique to exploit the situation. If you have previously memorized the technique, the only hard part is seeing the idea. It is a chiken and the egg situation.... How can you see the idea if you do not know the technique well enough to recognize your specific situation as familiar?

Well, let me tell you all something that will end this debate.  If memory serves me ----  I'm sorry, I forgot my point!

No, that wasn't directed towards you -- if you read my posts we're making the same case:  

It was directed to Richie (and Oprah too, but only by association).