Memorization vs Skill
Sort:
Amrak90
Aug 7, 2023
0
#1
Anyone else find it annoying when you're opponent is clearly just memorizing the same GM level openings and playing them till they don't work? It's the equivalent to plagiarizing someone else's work in a class and pretending you're smart enough to write at that caliber. Anyone can memorize a cheap opening. People need to start calculating and playing real chess. Stop memorizing openings, your wins mean nothing if you're getting dominated the second your opponent get's past your prep. This is why Bobby Fischer will always be the best and most others are just faking it.
That's some bs
Only at the grandmaster level is memorizing hundreds of lines necessary. At the amateur level just pick out a favorite opening for White and Black and stick with it.
gg
Aug 7, 2023
0
#5
Of course at the gm level it becomes more ridiculous but at lower levels it's just sad because have all these players farm 1 cheap opening trap they saw on Youtube all the way to 1100 until it no longer works, then find another opening trap that they farm to 1500 without actually having any skill. It's annoying because the people who actually think for themselves have to spend like 2-3 minutes of a rapid opening trying to figure out what cookie cutter opening these imitators are playing
As White I always played the English opening in all my tournaments and got to USCF 1450 before I quit playing tournaments. Playing Black I would almost always use the Caro Kann or Lasker Defense. I didn't try to learn a half dozen openings. I never started playing chess until I was an adult though.
Aug 7, 2023
0
#7
At least you're only using good positional openings instead of relying on cheap opening traps to win games
Aug 7, 2023
0
#9
Amrak90 wrote:
At least you're only using good positional openings instead of relying on cheap opening traps to win games
You only need to know one line against each of those cheap traps, though.
For instance, the Englund Gambit (played by Black, after 1. d4 e5) is worthless if White answers it properly. After 1. d4 e5 2. dxe4 Nc6 3. Nf3 Qe7 4. Nc3! White already has a big advantage, and Black isn't getting the trap he intended.
Aug 7, 2023
0
#10
Amrak90 wrote:
Anyone else find it annoying when you're opponent is clearly just memorizing the same GM level openings and playing them till they don't work? It's the equivalent to plagiarizing someone else's work in a class and pretending you're smart enough to write at that caliber. Anyone can memorize a cheap opening. People need to start calculating and playing real chess. Stop memorizing openings, your wins mean nothing if you're getting dominated the second your opponent get's past your prep. This is why Bobby Fischer will always be the best and most others are just faking it.
You need to memorize a lot of branches to get past move four. Understanding aids memory.
You need to rethink your comparison to plagiarism.
Amrak90 wrote:
Anyone else find it annoying when you're opponent is clearly just memorizing the same GM level openings and playing them till they don't work? It's the equivalent to plagiarizing someone else's work in a class and pretending you're smart enough to write at that caliber. Anyone can memorize a cheap opening. People need to start calculating and playing real chess. Stop memorizing openings, your wins mean nothing if you're getting dominated the second your opponent get's past your prep. This is why Bobby Fischer will always be the best and most others are just faking it.
Im beginning to notice a trend. People who like to complain about theory usually have an elo of under 1000. Also the comparison is absolutely terrible for multiple reasons.
1. If somone has already invented a bicycle (which can be compared to an opening) why would you try your hardest to reinvent the bike when it has already been invented for you. What this means is why should you try to create your own theory from scratch when the best has already been made, and you are just wasting your time.
2. The point of theory isn't to spit out moves, but to understand the concepts of the moves and what they are trying to accomplish, so instead of plagarizing, its just seeing the main ideas of someones work and using it in your own, except instead of simply plagarizing, you are citing your sources. What I mean by that is its not plagarism because you aren't making your own openings and claiming to have been the first to play them. You are playing an opening called "The Ruy Lopez" because he made it popular.
3. You aren't plagarizing because your getting all of the moves wrong anyway.
Memorizing is a skill.
Aug 7, 2023
0
#13
Amrak90 wrote:
Anyone else find it annoying when you're opponent is clearly just memorizing the same GM level openings and playing them till they don't work? It's the equivalent to plagiarizing someone else's work in a class and pretending you're smart enough to write at that caliber. Anyone can memorize a cheap opening. People need to start calculating and playing real chess. Stop memorizing openings, your wins mean nothing if you're getting dominated the second your opponent get's past your prep. This is why Bobby Fischer will always be the best and most others are just faking it.
This kind of attitude will hold you back, not just in chess but in anything.
Making things harder on yourself then wearing it like a badge of honor isn't practical or admirable. Use the tools you have available to do the best job you can. That will always mean modern tools and techniques give you more than past masters had.
Also your comparison to Fischer is out of place since he memorized an enormous amount. There are multiple stories of other GMs marveling at his knowledge.
-
As for players who do the same thing over and over... you have to start somewhere. If they play, for example, a London setup and try to attack the kingside the same way in every game, sure that's low tier compared to a master, but it's better than nothing. As they continue to learn and get more experience they'll branch out to new ideas and patterns.
... but this is something I see more often at, let's say, the 1700 level (using the same few ideas)... you're not even 1000.
Aug 7, 2023
0
#14
Fischer random requires skill, regular chess requires a good memory. A noob can probably beat a gm just by watching all their games and preparing a line for whatever that gm usually responds to a specific opening. That's not skill, just memory. Just like libs in school. They're great at memorizing talking points but do very little calculation themselves.
Aug 7, 2023
0
#15
I'm legitimately very confused by this post edit: nvm i'm not thx rainbow corn
Aug 7, 2023
0
#17
Oh oops, thanks for pointing it out. I stopped reading the latest comment after the first line when i realized it was totally wrong.
Aug 7, 2023
0
#18
Amrak90 wrote:
Fischer random requires skill, regular chess requires a good memory. A noob can probably beat a gm just by watching all their games and preparing a line for whatever that gm usually responds to a specific opening. That's not skill, just memory. Just like libs in school. They're great at memorizing talking points but do very little calculation themselves.
You should read some posts by players who know what they are talking about. Your perception of players spitting out moves they don’t understand simply from memory is incredibly naive.
After four moves have been played, there are 18 billion possible positions. To remember anything that far, you must also understand why 17.99 billion of those positions are completely and totally lost for one side. That still leaves a million to memorize. No one has done so.
Aug 7, 2023
0
#19
Ziryab 写道:
Amrak90 wrote:
Fischer random requires skill, regular chess requires a good memory. A noob can probably beat a gm just by watching all their games and preparing a line for whatever that gm usually responds to a specific opening. That's not skill, just memory. Just like libs in school. They're great at memorizing talking points but do very little calculation themselves.
You should read some posts by players who know what they are talking about. Your perception of players spitting out moves they don’t understand simply from memory is incredibly naive.
After four moves have been played, there are 18 billion possible positions. To remember anything that far, you must also understand why 17.99 billion of those positions are completely and totally lost for one side. That still leaves a million to memorize. No one has done so.
Like unicorn pointed out, that person probably knows what they're saying is completely wrong so 
Aug 7, 2023
0
#20
ice_cream_cake wrote:
Ziryab 写道:
Amrak90 wrote:
Fischer random requires skill, regular chess requires a good memory. A noob can probably beat a gm just by watching all their games and preparing a line for whatever that gm usually responds to a specific opening. That's not skill, just memory. Just like libs in school. They're great at memorizing talking points but do very little calculation themselves.
You should read some posts by players who know what they are talking about. Your perception of players spitting out moves they don’t understand simply from memory is incredibly naive.
After four moves have been played, there are 18 billion possible positions. To remember anything that far, you must also understand why 17.99 billion of those positions are completely and totally lost for one side. That still leaves a million to memorize. No one has done so.
Like unicorn pointed out, that person probably knows what they're saying is completely wrong so
The idea that one must be wholly original in everything holds many people back not only in chess, but in every human endeavor where skill development is useful.