Theory ruins chess

Chess would be a better game without opening theory. Who wants to memorize these lines, then blitz them out without any thinking? How would that be a good thing in a problem solving game like chess.

Also it ****ing sucks to play when your opponent instantly plays the perfect moves and uh oh, your lost! better luck next time kid.

(game I lost in 10 moves)

Play chess960: no theory.

Why even play chess if you have to change the rules to play?

Also, if you ever want to participate in any serious tournaments, you will still have to play standard

#3
The rules of chess have changed several times in history.
There are tournaments in chess960.

You fully well know how hard it is to find normal chess tournaments held in acceptable locations for most people, forget about variant tournaments. So stop with the pointless arguments.

If you want to play variants, you have no future in OTB chess, and can forget about titles and such.

And can you clarify your first point? What does it matter that the rules were changed 200 years ago, are you suggesting they be changed again? Because you again, well know that will never happen

I looked at this match and wasn't able to ascertain why you concluded that you'd already been beaten.

I can see that you have to give up a bishop or exchange the rook to lock in the knight and that you were probably going to lose but are you sure that there is really no way to recover?

There is a version of “opening theory” in every multiplayer game out there. The community always come together to find an optimal [mechanic in the game]. This includes chess. It’s a necessary evil. (Plus, theory is just best moves in a line. So, if u were playing a good ppponent, they would be able to find those moves anyways. It’s simply optimal, nothing more.)

"it ****ing sucks to play when your opponent instantly plays the perfect moves and uh oh, your lost!"

Yes - that's why there's opening theory - it works.

To be fair, the opening is my least favorite part of the game 

Position is -3 if you let your engine run a little longer. Also it's not smart to simply look at the evaluation in a positioin like this. 

Here only few moves are good, and none are human moves. Top move by engine is infact Rg1 or Qd2.. It's much more human like, to play something like Nc3, which immediately drops eval to -6.

Perhaps I could have tried to struggle a bit more, but I was simply tired and didn't see any way to continue

Yeah, looking back maybe play Qe2 and try to play down the exchange after Qxe2, Kxe2, Nc2. Even then, it's a rapid game where I'm down the exchange with worst pieces, and the position is very safe for black. Even now I doubt there was any hope to recover

#1
6 Bd3, 8 Bc2, 9 Ba4, 10 Bxd7+ cannot be right: 4 moves to trade your good bishop for his bad bishop that made only 1 move.

Sure, looking back Nc3 or short castle was clearly the right move instead of Ba4. But still if not for Qa6, position is fine for white

If you don't even know 10 moves of the advance French as a 2000 player...

But anyway, all skills (not just chess) involve study and memorization. I think the title should be "Theory makes it harder, and I'm lazy"

#13

Tbf if you see that ...Nd3+ followed by ...Nxf2 (else discovered check) is the threat, moves like Qd2 and Rg1 make a lot of sense and actually feel like only-moves in this position. But yes, it is a pretty annoying position to try to make something out of, white's got bad development, black is going to take the c-file, and black's kingside will have an easy time developing as well.

This isn't a Chess problem. If you want to be in the upper echelon of any game or sport then you've got to expect to lose to people who take training more seriously. It would be fantastic if we could win on raw natural talent and ingenuity, but it's not a particularly strong differentiator. Even, Einstein laboured for a whole decade over the generally accepted, greatest work of individual human genius.

How true.  Play the game for pleasure.  Study openings, study end games, study whatever you want to study to the extent you want to improve your game.  But, unless you want to get to GM, take pleasure in playing the King of All Board Games.

bro you lost in 10 moves?

lmao you suck

well Fischer did agree in the idea that the game can be more funner without engine preparations or all this studied theory which makes it boring and more stressful. Hikaru and most people however just agree that if anything theory along with engines have made the game bigger than it ever is now, just look at all amazing contributions and top level games with fun events that are well designed with the games being like they were flared from fire