memorizing theory. please post super long lines in Botvinnik Semi slav, Najdorf, dragon, ruy, here.

if you've ever discussed chess openings with another player or watched a gotham vid you've done studying

If you're talking about the line I posted, recapturing on d5 with the pawn is the best because concretely, white's best option after Bxd5 is to go into the perpetual check line. on d5, it restricts black's e pawn and white can pressure it with Rhe1 for example. Although it seems like white's bishop on b3 is easily attacked, it really isn't.

White ends up either up a pawn for an airy king in a rook endgame, or material is even and I feel like black is in a relatively defensive position. Although to be fair, my line with Qb6 is not as common - Kg8!? was considered the only move since it was discovered.

Hyperbole, for sure.

However, one doesn't need to study lines super deep to reach a decent level of play.

I'd say, in all honesty, that I don't really know any theoretical lines past move 12 or so.

More important to know the common themes and overall ideas ... at least at a sub-master level.

If you play reasonable, logical chess, you should be able to find playable continuations most of the time, anyway.

I agree. But you don't really get good by not studying, and especially not the opening, the easiest aspect of chess to study. Reviewing your openings and checking with the engine, for example, is obviously study (what else could it be?).

lol I dont watch chess videos, and I have NEVER studied a chess opening by myself or with another player 🤷‍♂️. If you feel like wasting enough time to dig through my account, look at the lines that I play 😂. I MADE THIS STUFF UP at the 500 level!

😂 my openings in game review are always full of mistakes and inaccuracies. I don't bother fixing any of it 🙃. Check before calling someone a liar next time 🤭

I don't know why you're so adamant on saying that you've "never studied any openings". Maybe because there's the implication of how naturally gifted you are based on your rating? And you'd like to keep that implication going? I used to be like that, and while I like lying on the internet, it gets boring after a long time, so I stopped.

> "If you feel like wasting enough time to dig through my account, look at the lines that I play".

Okay, let's do that.

I mean, the Trompowsky, an offbeat opening, being played correctly is not really a great way to try to show that you never study any theory. It let's you play the game with less theory, but it's not really an opening you find out about randomly.

Unfortunately, your opponent deviated early instead of playing a normal move like 3...c5 or 3...d5, which was a bit disappointing.

I checked a second game, where you were black and played the semi-slav setup in response to one of those quiet line english opening setups (e3, c4 with no d4). I think it would be difficult for you to claim that you've never studied a line in your life when you play the semi slav.

> "My openings... are full of mistakes and inaccuracies."

Mistakes and inaccuracies are to be expected in any phase of the game, so I don't understand why that's a point you're making. It might show you're thinking for yourself, but it's not like theory is necessarily always mistake-free. I know a line in the dragon where black is an exchange down, and is recommended in Gawain Jones's book. The computer calls it a mistake. There's another line in the Dlugy variation of the Benko where white has a theoretical pawn sac, and the computer ranks it as a worse move than moving your king to f2 before any piece is developed. Theory doesn't necessarily mean a good move, just a known one, although ideally, you'd want it to be a good move.

> "I have never studied a chess opening by myself or with another player..."

You have never run any of your games through the computer? Never checked the moves in your opening and made improvements with stockfish? I really find that difficult to believe. Not all opening lines have to be learned from youtube or a book for it to fall under the classification of "study".

> "I made this stuff up at 500 level"

I don't think 500s are making up the semi-slav or tarrasch defense setups against non-e4 openings. Nor would they know how to play the trompowsky relatively well after the second move. So I don't really believe this.

> "Check before calling someone a liar next time"

No thanks.

----

Finally, I don't know why you like to use these emojis. I guess you want to show everyone reading that you're not taking my claims seriously. I'm even featured as a screenshot in your bio! Perhaps one day you'll realize that other people's opinions on you online matter very little, and then you will achieve the coveted accomplishment of having a serious discussion over the internet.

I see you wasted your time 😂

Yes, I use emojis because......... You haven't the slightest idea on what you're talking about

You turned my encouraging advice into my being a liar 🤷‍♂️

.......

I'm really impressed on your devotion on writing that book up there 👆, but maybe someday you'll learn to follow your own advice. I am joining the nonsense, because I have friends over, and we all think it's hilarious!

In a second, after writing a couple more responses, I am going to go watch Star Wars.

1. Ryan wouldnt study an opening if his life depended on it

2. THIS IS HILARIOUS lol

3. A serious conversation is one where you stay on topic, and don't accuse people of lying.

4. You're interrupting our movie, go do something else 🙄

James, you can achieve great rating goals! Just practice lots of tactics.

How do you suggest I randomly find my openings next time

You think and not know. This is not good backing 🙃. Write me a full report on how it has been proven that there is 0 chance for me to have not studied openings. I KNOW that you can't. Why do you care so much about my not studying. This seems rather......not serious 🤷‍♂️.

If I was wrong, than I am a liar. I am not a liar. They would probably crush me in a match, and I am very ok with that ✅. Back to opening theory now, PLEASE 🥺!

Bye bye forum 🫡

Because it is disingenuous.

Your implication is that "everyone can be like me if they do what I do". Let's assume you have not done even an ounce of exaggeration.

You mean to tell me that in all your time playing chess, you have not learned a single thing about openings?

Give me a break.

I will also demonstrate where you have studied openings.

Do you get Scholar's mated?

"look how unbothered I am... I have friends over, we are all laughing at you!"

It seems I was right in my assumptions.

Hello guys

Your "solution" would likely make you suck even more.

No, opening memorization is nowhere close to making one (anyone) a better player.

I can’t see a demonstration 😂

James, you lose your games because of blunders, not because of lack of opening knowledge. Knowing some theory helps, but blundering is what ultimately decides the game. Also, playing 30 moves of theory requires opponent knowing at least 29 moves of theory. I guarantee you that no 1600 in the world will ever go to theoretical fight in Botvinnik or such lines. Also, your show quite non-American lack of confidence by saying “I suck” and resigning games too early. Yes, study some theory, but working on your concetration and mindset will bring you much more benefit.