you can’t lose 300 points in 20 mins even in your dream
Why do so many of the top players really dislike “theory”
Sort:
Feb 7, 2025
0
#3
Oootherworlddd wrote:
you can’t lose 300 points in 20 mins even in your dream
Yes u can 😭😭😭😭 lol
Feb 18, 2025
0
#4
It's boring, learning opening as much opening theory as possible isn't really skill. A good chess player defines of understanding the game properly, no matter what the position is. Tal was one of the few who did it.
The Chess Engine is so full of crap its Artificial Eyes are Brown.
The move 1.b3 is a terrible move.
The Best moves would be:
1 - e3
2 - b4
3 - c4
The move e3 is the most flexible move.
The move b4 lets you play Nb3 which helps you attack d4 along with your Dark Bishop.
The move c4 can help develop your Bishop outside the pawn chain to a4 in order to attack the weakest square on the board d7.
d7 is weakest square on board as it is only defended by the King.
Feb 18, 2025
0
#6
Compadre_J wrote:
The Chess Engine is so full of crap its Artificial Eyes are Brown.
The move 1.b3 is a terrible move.
The Best moves would be:
1 - e3
2 - b4
3 - c4
The move e3 is the most flexible move.
The move b4 lets you play Nb3 which helps you attack d4 along with your Dark Bishop.
The move c4 can help develop your Bishop outside the pawn chain to a4 in order to attack the weakest square on the board d7.
d7 is weakest square on board as it is only defended by the King.
Interesting, i used the liches stockfish 17 and it said b3 is best
Planet_CHESS0344 wrote:
ugh, i was writing this and then my device died, so i have to type all of this again 😭
Why does it seem as though so many of the top players (magnus especially) hates “theory” and is turning to 960? Here is my opinion (please no arguing here in the forum
So the chess as we know it and love/hate (especially when you lose 300 elo in 20 minutes) it today has been played for ~500 or 600 years, and of course, people are going to try and find perfect ways to play it. Once i heard someone say that (it was either hikaru of magnus i think) that they dont want to play into some boring drawish line in the Petroff
but lets just stop here for a second: imagine that 960 was the original chess; eventually + with the assistance of modern day engines, people would find perfect ways to play all 960 positions
take this 960 positon for example(i got this from a random Lichess study so credit to SoccerKing26 on lichess for making it): on a lower depth, the engine says that 1.b3 is the best move here with ~+0.3 eval
but what if this was the standard chess set up position? Over time it would be solved (more or less) perfectly
so here is my opinion: I dont understand why so many of the best players seem to pretty much hate normal, standard, classical chess games, i believe that FIDE and the freestyle chess organization (i forgot what its actually called) should come to an agreement how players can play both
but as for my question, why do a lot of GMs hate theory? (I mean yeah, in a way i kinda answered my own question, but i would like to hear your opinions on this)
Oh it's cause we all hate Lord stockfish
Feb 18, 2025
0
#8
You touch a really fine point, Planet_Chess. Thanks for your detection, creating an opportunity to express many views.
In general, I totally agree with long_quach. Without classical chess, there would have been no history of chess, as well as its prestigious position. If 960 was the original version of chess, nowadays it would be no more than a child game with hundreds of mind-boggling variations. There would be no expertise on it, because it would be both meaningless and impossible.
Today we see grandmasters complaining of theory and boredom. However, their attitude seems so hypocritical to me. They all came to their hard-earned and prestigious positions by studying, applying and adding own skills of creativity to theory. Mastering the theory made them famous. Time changes and youngsters come up as new masters. Younger players excel ar theory and say their own words. This fact disturbs elder masters and they complain about theory, they feel uncomfortable with the boredom of classical chess.
Did you hear Magnus complaining about theory when he became WC by beating Anand? It was his own work on theory that gave him the glory.
In general, I totally agree with long_quach. Without classical chess, there would have been no history of chess, as well as its prestigious position. If 960 was the original version of chess, nowadays it would be no more than a child game with hundreds of mind-boggling variations. There would be no expertise on it, because it would be both meaningless and impossible.
Today we see grandmasters complaining of theory and boredom. However, their attitude seems so hypocritical to me. They all came to their hard-earned and prestigious positions by studying, applying and adding own skills of creativity to theory. Mastering the theory made them famous. Time changes and youngsters come up as new masters. Younger players excel ar theory and say their own words. This fact disturbs elder masters and they complain about theory, they feel uncomfortable with the boredom of classical chess.
Did you hear Magnus complaining about theory when he became WC by beating Anand? It was his own work on theory that gave him the glory.
Feb 18, 2025
0
#9
ookiiman wrote:
You touch a really fine point, Planet_Chess. Thanks for your detection, creating an opportunity to express many views.
In general, I totally agree with long_quach. Without classical chess, there would have been no history of chess, as well as its prestigious position. If 960 was the original version of chess, nowadays it would be no more than a child game with hundreds of mind-boggling variations. There would be no expertise on it, because it would be both meaningless and impossible.
Today we see grandmasters complaining of theory and boredom. However, their attitude seems so hypocritical to me. They all came to their hard-earned and prestigious positions by studying, applying and adding own skills of creativity to theory. Mastering the theory made them famous. Time changes and youngsters come up as new masters. Younger players excel ar theory and say their own words. This fact disturbs elder masters and they complain about theory, they feel uncomfortable with the boredom of classical chess.
Did you hear Magnus complaining about theory when he became WC by beating Anand? It was his own work on theory that gave him the glory.
In general, I totally agree with long_quach. Without classical chess, there would have been no history of chess, as well as its prestigious position. If 960 was the original version of chess, nowadays it would be no more than a child game with hundreds of mind-boggling variations. There would be no expertise on it, because it would be both meaningless and impossible.
Today we see grandmasters complaining of theory and boredom. However, their attitude seems so hypocritical to me. They all came to their hard-earned and prestigious positions by studying, applying and adding own skills of creativity to theory. Mastering the theory made them famous. Time changes and youngsters come up as new masters. Younger players excel ar theory and say their own words. This fact disturbs elder masters and they complain about theory, they feel uncomfortable with the boredom of classical chess.
Did you hear Magnus complaining about theory when he became WC by beating Anand? It was his own work on theory that gave him the glory.
Yes, exactly, now magnus said that he will quit the WCC due to bored of all the preparation
Feb 18, 2025
0
#10
I don’t think the top players ‘dislike’ theory (some may do but I don’t think that’s the underlying reason some top players don’t want to play it) but it’s more of a recognition that things have become so saturated with all the preparation a lot of the creativity has inevitably gone.
I don’t necessarily agree that with powerful engines people could find ways to play all 960 positions perfectly; sure, computers may be able to, but currently it’s a full time job for the pros to keep up to date with just the 1 starting positions, trying to memorise and replicate anything close that level of prep by a factor of 960 isn’t really feasible for anyone, so there’s much more scope to take risks and bring surprises early on.
personally I think that for 960 iwhile some of the positions are ok, some are quite ugly and awkward to play, and to be honest it doesn’t really interest me that much. I haven’t watched any of this Freestyle tour thing, I only even found out what it was a few days ago.
ugh, i was writing this and then my device died, so i have to type all of this again 😭
Why does it seem as though so many of the top players (magnus especially) hates “theory” and is turning to 960? Here is my opinion (please no arguing here in the forum
So the chess as we know it and love/hate (especially when you lose 300 elo in 20 minutes) it today has been played for ~500 or 600 years, and of course, people are going to try and find perfect ways to play it. Once i heard someone say that (it was either hikaru of magnus i think) that they dont want to play into some boring drawish line in the Petroff
but lets just stop here for a second: imagine that 960 was the original chess; eventually + with the assistance of modern day engines, people would find perfect ways to play all 960 positions
take this 960 positon for example(i got this from a random Lichess study so credit to SoccerKing26 on lichess for making it):
on a lower depth, the engine says that 1.b3 is the best move here with ~+0.3 eval
but what if this was the standard chess set up position? Over time it would be solved (more or less) perfectly
so here is my opinion: I dont understand why so many of the best players seem to pretty much hate normal, standard, classical chess games, i believe that FIDE and the freestyle chess organization (i forgot what its actually called) should come to an agreement how players can play both
but as for my question, why do a lot of GMs hate theory? (I mean yeah, in a way i kinda answered my own question, but i would like to hear your opinions on this)