Studying openings is highly UNDERrated!

These masters definitely memorize a lot, like 100k. Even a recent example - read the front page Sinquefield cup article, and see how Hikaru Nakamura even admits he 'forgot' his computer preparation super deep into a Sicilian defense. When you're going that deep, you're def in the many thousands of variations memorized.

I will say that the article is very hard to read and there are many questions I did not see answered.

I think they are double counting. For example the sequence 1. e4  e5

2. Nf3  Nc6 and now they give 3. a4 as a theoretical novelty. They say that 1. e4  e5  2. Nf3  Nc6 is knowledge.  But I am guessing when they look at these hundreds of thousands of moves in various chess books they are often counting the same moves twice.

 For example  1. e4  e5  2. Nf3  Nc6  3. a4 can be counted as  5 ply. [they are calling "ply" as moves.

However if you say the above is 5 ply then really

1. e4  e5  2. Nf3  Nc3  3. h4  is another theoretical novelty [it is really just a bad move but that is beside the point]  The sequence is only 1 more ply and the ply is 3. h4

So the two sequences together should only count as 6 ply [not 10 ply]

This makes a big difference when sequences are longer. And almost all sequences are much longer.

If you  count these repeat moves as different ply, then you could get up to 100,000 moves.

I have to admit.

I don't think I can read that article SmyslovFan.

It is tough!

I guess the biggest problem is. I am left with the question of why?

Why would anyone care how many lines a Grand master can memorize?

I don't know. I guess I will look at it another time. Until than I'll put it on a shelf and let that beef marinate.

ponz: Of course they are "double-counting."

The object is to come up with a sensible way to measure how many and how deep the opening lines a human knows on average, not to calculate the  smallest number of nodes on a ply tree if that knowledge were stored on a computer.

That makes sense to me. If you don't like it or think it's unfair, well fine, but that's the way the game is played in this discussion.

So, with that stipulated, do you still disagree that masters have, on average, 100,000 opening moves memorized?

I guess the biggest problem is. I am left with the question of why?

Why would anyone care how many lines a Grand master can memorize?

X: Because that's the way science works. You try to find specific, concrete ways to measure what you are studying rather than wave your hands and say "Masters know a lot -- I mean a lot! -- of opening moves."

Of course ponz111 disagrees: He has played pre-computer correspondence chess at a very high level, and being a strong player, he does not believe in metaphysical phenomenae.

When they are furiously analysing 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a5 (incidentally Stefan, who suggested the move is a strong player/ FIDE Master) then something is going terribly wrong there. They remind me of harsh cinema critics/ "authorities", which have never been behind a camera in their whole life...

pfren: I seem to recall your claim that when you were young you read and absorbed whole volumes of opening theory and game collections.

I dont trust much of what you say, but I believed that.

I found that at relatively low level otb junior tournaments, opening prep can be devastatingly effective. I have got crushing positions within 10-15 moves against decent opposition and my first draw (as black) with an FM featured roughly 20 moves of KID theory. I'm not saying that you should ONLY study theory, but there is no substitute for learning concrete lines when it comes to avoiding traps or playing ambitiously from the start. This only becomes more important when you play sharp openings like the OP.

Its overated, i reached master level and my repertoire can be learned within 30 or 45 minutes. Focus on chess understanding.

Do you play the reti or the english by any chance?

This is one of the (several) reasons I never became a very strong player.

And of course reading an opening book (even ECO) is quite different than memorizing moves. The latter is one of the most stupid things to do.

I played once a game where I copypasted a Gheorghiu game from Chess Informant, up to his "brilliant" novelty which he had decorated with a double exclamation mark. The opponent (lower rated than me) who was quite unfamiliar with the theory of the variation thought for a good fifty minutes, and refuted the Grandmaster's "brilliancy" quite convincingly (I was able to save half a point since he got into time trouble later and spoiled an easy win). When we discussed the game later, I did realize that the "brilliancy" was nothing more than a cheapo, since it was not justified positionally. To have a good positional instict, you definitely don't need memorizing ANY moves, and that is that.

No, i play d4 with white, kingsindian with black and e5 against e4. I know some theory but mainly ideas. From training with masters i know some longer theory lines but only a few. I could play the English though, just dont know the theory but is no problem in this opening anyway.

   You are not my grandpa, unless you are about 125 years old. And how the Hell did you lose 11 out of 12 online games...timed out?

Bully for you.

Chess is more of an art than a science. There are many ways to play the game and win. Just look at all the openings that are played the GM level and the range of styles among GMs. At the lower levels there is even more leeway.

I know I've won games becasuse I knew the opening better than my opponent. I'm not the only one. At the very least opening preparation can give you a time advantage.

Figuring out the right balance of opening study for your style and level is the tricky part.

"... nobody can wholly escape the dire necessity of compiling variations and of examining and memorizing them. And therefore such a compilation is correctly included in a manual of chess." - Lasker's Manual of Chess (algebraic edition)

It is unclear how they are counting moves to get to 100,000. But if they are counting duplicate moves then some masters could have 100,000 moves at their disposal.  You might have 70,000 of them as duplicate moves.

and how large was his Manual of Chess compared to chess theory today?

Harvey, yes Timed out. And ipcress, understanding is and always will be more important than memorizing Lines. I often Play 1.b3 or even 1.a3 just to get a playable position and see if i can outplay my opponent.

And here is where so much time is wasted in these discussions.

Except for Rain Man no one "memorizes" chess moves like they memorize phone numbers. It's always a combination of repetition, exposure, and understanding.

When I was a kid I didn't set out to "memorize" the first dozen moves of the mainline Ruy. I just went over it a bunch of times, read about it, thought about it and played it, then eventually I knew it as though I had memorized it.

There are people who use the chess software that drills you on variations -- I've tried it myself -- but even there you (mostly) have to have some understanding of what you are playing in order for the moves to sink in.