Theory ruins chess

Opening theory is basically unimportant below master level. Almost no games are decided because one player has a deeper knowledge of "theory" than his opponent. If you have  a decent understanding of your openings, and you know a few lines, you'll be fine. Your opponent won't have any secret magic moves to crush you

So you hate practice. Chess takes work dude. If you lose it ten moves to someone who's rated as high as you, you suck.

Thanks for the advice 600

usually forums similar aren't rather much anything proven but something subjective towards people with the belief that the game would have been better without engines and the modern stuff that we have now. as i said earlier and as i will try to restate now, the game sure may be more fun as it would most be between 2 human beings, not 1 with engine knowledge which gives a boring and unfair advantage. however this does make the game more competitive and to a brighter stage than ever before, think about the future when making these topics as regardless of how much theory can seem annoying you cant deny its impacting the chess world in a way bigger way than it ever was in the past not just at the highest levels its amazing

I'm a bit confused as to why engines and theory were so important to the games popularity? It seems as if your implying, that all the growth the game has seen, is due to theory or engines.

Yet, 90% of players don't care about any of this. Most new players play cause they liked Queens gambit, or just find the game fun. Why do you give engines such a huge contribution?

(Also, theory existed far before engines. It's not like they were required for it)

I agree

its due to the engines which revolutionized theory and made the game much more exciting in a very diverse way. now i dont want to break into other types of topics as i hate arguments but the thing with chess is that it flourishes cause of how beautiful and unique it can become regardless of your health, disabilities or problems anyone can learn and be good at it. theory has made the game where it is now at one of its most crucial impacts, the engines basically just reinforced theory and made it bigger than ever before with many studying and playing it

cause engines is pretty much the new modern way of breathing in this world, its like technology if you think about it in a certain way. for us players we must make money or improve through diligent work and studying which engines paved a huge benefit for. i have seen numerous people that are grateful and thank engines as they have again only reinforced and flourished new things making the game more beautiful and fun. lots of masters even got their titles simply from playing around with theory and engines which seems crazy but it works, literally one user i met on a discord server earned FM with just a lichess engine

That's harsh, but funny.

If you lose in the opening stage, that's not a failure of memorization, it's a failure to understand the position.

If you're memorizing moves, then you're studying openings the wrong way. Your goal should be to understand the purpose of each move & recognize the thematic maneuvers. If you can do that, you will get decent positions out of the opening even when your memory fails you. I'm frequently out of book by move 5, yet that doesn't keep me from getting good positions.

#32
Things start going wrong with Bc2, moving the bishop the second time. Just 8 O-O instead.
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1139423

https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1139522 

eh i beg to differ they will still exist but online and speed chess will be more popular

yeah i agree

well online and otb are different so i agree in certain things, doesn't mean i agree entirely in general butter. you don't know everything in how i interpret it so i wouldn't say that ah i got that person figured out. theres definitely more to me than you really think on the surface

ah well yea

Does it matter how someone reaches a specific rating? If they got there with less theory, it just means they made up for it by being better at tactics.

Also that's a lazy excuse to justify theory. Chess is already full of memorization, you memorize patters to improve pattern recognition, different ideas to make use of them in suitable positions. 

But out of these types of learning, mindlessly memorising lines of opening theory is by far the most passive, and least fun way to learn. Why should I not be allowed to complain about it?

well what would you suggest? everyone wiping their minds after every game they play?

It you want to test raw problem solving ability then Chess is the wrong challenge. The best you can do is a different problem each time and even then that ability gets trained by solving each unique problem.

You can try to convince people to play a game of chess but they're not allowed to play the best moves.