-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Chess- Is it all about memorizing lines?
- Thread starter JEDI
- Start date
Absolutely not. Memorizing lines is more about the opening and perhaps some endgame positions (Lucena position being the primary example, but even that's more of a principle than it is a specific position). The openings are played fairly verbatim at most levels, but at 1300 most really aren't familiar with the openings. Tactical decisions are what make the difference in all but the most advanced players, and this is more about board vision, identifying patterns of potential tactics that can be readily exploited.
Chess is more about dynamic evaluation of positional nuances, the accumulation of small advantages for each side and the exploitation of weaknesses. This could be pawn structure, pieces en prise, underdefended pieces, exposed king, etc. Each is a small advantage (or disadvantage if you're the owner of such a malformed situation), and you have to take advantage.
Chess is more about dynamic evaluation of positional nuances, the accumulation of small advantages for each side and the exploitation of weaknesses. This could be pawn structure, pieces en prise, underdefended pieces, exposed king, etc. Each is a small advantage (or disadvantage if you're the owner of such a malformed situation), and you have to take advantage.
Yes, clear intuition only gets you so far. You need to train and recognize very complex 5+order moves to get extremely good and usually that takes memorization.
Yeah, I was only 14XX when I stopped playing, but I figure that is good enough. Why bother with more unless you want to make it a career.
preslove
Lifer
There are many basic patterns and relationships that one needs to know well and identify quickly, but once you have them down there is much more to it. Yes, you need to know that a pinned piece is very vulnerable, but strategic play requires you to take in many many such relationships as potential outcomes of your planned tactics.
sao123
Lifer
is there a book which can teach how to evaluate the board and predict a 3-5 move sequence?
I used to be a 950 player, (which sux) but I could never get better because I couldnt figure out how to evaluate and recognize patterns beyond the basics (skewers, forks, pins, etc), and I could never play more than a 2 move depth.
And I suck at memorizing, I know some opening sequences, but i dont know when, why or how to use them against other openings. My mid game sux, because im a piece exchanger, and i usually lose.
I used to be a 950 player, (which sux) but I could never get better because I couldnt figure out how to evaluate and recognize patterns beyond the basics (skewers, forks, pins, etc), and I could never play more than a 2 move depth.
And I suck at memorizing, I know some opening sequences, but i dont know when, why or how to use them against other openings. My mid game sux, because im a piece exchanger, and i usually lose.
Isn't that what I said? 😀
That's one of the msot common misconceptions about chess and one of the primary reasons most people don't advance. It's about positional evaluation, and that is absolutely not about memorization. There are macro positions (e.g. weak f7 pawn leading to a potential mating attack) that resemble patterns that you're familiar with, but memorizing entire positions in a middlegame simply isn't feasible.
Apologies if I misunderstood what you said.
And intuition = knowledge + experience, but in order to build a solid intuition you have to first know how to evaluate a position. Most people simply don't know how to say, "Which move is best?" in any position. Memorization won't help here.
IMO 🙂
I could give you my opinion, but this guy gave a great list of books for all ratings. Personally, I think Silman's Reassess Your Chess is the best book, but perhaps not for a beginning player. For tactics I think Seirawan's series of books are great. For practice of tactics, chess tactics server is free and fairly good. Pandolfini's series of books are great for endgame positions.
Additionally, you could download the PGNs from tactical games and evaluate those. You could download Reinfeld's PGNs and load them into something like Scid. All free 🙂
Good luck.
That's simply not at all true, and again, it's that thinking that really prevents people from improving. No one memorizes 5+ positions ahead on any complex position. It's simply not possible. The total number of possible games is something like 10^123, so there's no way you're going to remember exact positions for any normal middlegame position. What you do recognize, as preslove said, are basic patterns and relationships, but they still require evaluation in order to avoid zugzwangs, counters that you didn't anticipate, etc.
BTW, I play at about the 1600-1700 level. I can readily beat 1800+ players through CC and OTB, but inevitably my lack of patience is my downfall.
thehstrybean
Diamond Member
And the little guys in front can't go sideways, either
QFT...
I get really impatient when playing chess. I usually move within a second after the other person moves. (probably because I started to play speed chess with my friends <2-3 minutes clocks> near the end of playing so much)
I have intuition about the game, but clearly no patience. When I sit down and actually force myself to look at all the options, I tend to do much better than I would have and I would even beat people much higher ranked than me, but because tournaments I never took seriously, so I just moved on impulse.
**EDIT**
I did play this one guy who was ranked over 2000 (genious). He boasted he could beat anyone with a 2 minute clock while giving the other guy unlimited amount of time (which he won mostly wiith other players). Knowing that he probably used the time that the other person was moving to analyze the board, and knowing that I tended to do that same (with the fact that I didn't have to beat him to actually "beat" him on time), I moved just as quick as I normally did. He ran out of time. He still beat me once we stopped the clock, but it was funny to see the look on his face when he realized that I was moving on instinct/intuition and not giving him time to analyze during my play.
Memorizing several key openings and end game mating techniques are the two best things you can do to improve your chess skills as a novice. I don't care how good your positional analysis is, you are going to lose a lot more often than you win if you get out of the opening with a crap position because you don't understand the strategy or basic opening theory. Opening theory is a LOT more than memorization of lines. Opening theory involves what you are trying to accomplish in an opening and what your opponent is trying to prevent. Your opening affects the middle game and in some cases the end game. If you don't know the opening you are playing, you won't have a good strategy going into the middle game unless you are incredibly brilliant and can spontaneously discover all the important theory that it took centuries of experimentation to perfect.
Key at the notice level is not only understanding the "good lines" but also the "bad lines" so that you know what to do if your opponent does something stupid.
Key at the notice level is not only understanding the "good lines" but also the "bad lines" so that you know what to do if your opponent does something stupid.
MikeyIs4Dcats
Lifer
nerds
Everything you just described about openings is true for all positions. Openings are no different than any other positional evaluation. Provided that you have a solid foundation of analysis you can easily make it out of an opening without falling into a trap. You don't need to memorize the lines of Ruy Lopez or understand the theory behind it to realize that something like the Noah's Ark trap is a bad situation; any basic positional evaluation would clearly lead you to understand that it's a very, very basic tactical blunder that's easily countered.
That's obvious enough. If you blunder at any point in a game it's going to effect the rest of it. If I blunder my middlegame my endgame is likely going to be hopeless. Likewise, if you blunder the opening your middlegame will be hopeless, and likely the entire game unless your opponent also blunders. Most games are lost, not won, at the sub-1800-level anyway.
Completely disagree. Most of the openings have little meaning by themselves anyway. It's the systems that took a long time to develop, and that takes years of experience to perfect. You can play the Sicilian, but do you understand it? Not likely, and understanding the theory behind it isn't going to improve your game anymore than just making the best move at any point in the opening.
Again, "bad lines" are bad moves. All of the opening traps exist because people play the openings verbatim and fail to realize why they're making the move. This isn't opening theory, this is basic tactis and positional evaluation. Yes, there is theory behind openings, but most players simply don't benefit novices.
For example, what good is it to explain the nuances of a King's Gambit Accepted if you can't even hang onto your pieces behind the opening. You're going to blunder away a piece in the opening, middlegame and endgame. This is tactics. This is basic chess that no amount of opening theory will address. You can't capitalize on tiny advantages like gain in development, more center space, etc. if you can't even do basic position counting, etc.
To me, learning opening theory before knowing how to evaluate a position is like trying to know physics before learning math. All you're left is with very qualitative evaluation of the game that will surely destroy you when it comes time to actually quantify; in chess, that means actually calculating the position to know whether or not the move is good.
On the topic of openings, I thought I'd give another example to express my point. Most openings exist because the moves are the best moves, not because there's some theory behind it. Let's consider the simplest opening:
1. e4
Controls the center. Frees the queen and king's bishop. A great developing move.
1... e5
Accomplishes the same for black.
2. Nf3
Attacks the e5 pawn and develops a knight in a natural position that maximizes its utility.
2...Nf6
Protects pawn, develops knight.
3. Bc4
This is the Giuoco Piano, a well-known opening. Note that all of these moves have occurred only because they are excellent moves. This attacks the oft-vulnerable f7 pawn and develops the bishop.
3...Nf6
Develops the knight, attacks the e4 pawn in an attempt to control the center, etc. Also prevents an attack along the f-file on the f7 pawn.
4. d3
Another development in the Giuoco Piano. Add another defender to the e4 pawn and the c4 bishop and develops the queen's bishop.
Anyway, you could go on and on like this, and you could do this for the overwhelming number of openings. All of the lines in the opening develop from strong moves, not some abstract theory about what's best. It's only when you get to the more complex openings/systems (e.g. Pirc, Sicilian Dragon, etc.) that theory comes into play; it starts to aberrate from obviously "good" moves and instead makes temporary sacrifices in position or material to gain an advantage elsewhere. For example, the Halloween Gambit gives away an entire minor piece for center play.
1. e4
Controls the center. Frees the queen and king's bishop. A great developing move.
1... e5
Accomplishes the same for black.
2. Nf3
Attacks the e5 pawn and develops a knight in a natural position that maximizes its utility.
2...Nf6
Protects pawn, develops knight.
3. Bc4
This is the Giuoco Piano, a well-known opening. Note that all of these moves have occurred only because they are excellent moves. This attacks the oft-vulnerable f7 pawn and develops the bishop.
3...Nf6
Develops the knight, attacks the e4 pawn in an attempt to control the center, etc. Also prevents an attack along the f-file on the f7 pawn.
4. d3
Another development in the Giuoco Piano. Add another defender to the e4 pawn and the c4 bishop and develops the queen's bishop.
Anyway, you could go on and on like this, and you could do this for the overwhelming number of openings. All of the lines in the opening develop from strong moves, not some abstract theory about what's best. It's only when you get to the more complex openings/systems (e.g. Pirc, Sicilian Dragon, etc.) that theory comes into play; it starts to aberrate from obviously "good" moves and instead makes temporary sacrifices in position or material to gain an advantage elsewhere. For example, the Halloween Gambit gives away an entire minor piece for center play.
Sorry but you are now the one attempting to oversimplify chess after accusing others of doing the same. Opening lines are based on countless games played by grandmasters and world champions over centuries of play. There is no set of 5 or 10 rules that will let you master analysis of any and all chess position in the known universe. There are too many nuances to openings. The best chess players in history have had trouble figuring out the best lines to play given a position. A 1600 is not going to fare any better.
Again, it's not about blundering vs not blundering. And it's not about novelty traps. Openings are a lot more nuanced than, "loses a queen in 8 moves" or any crap like that. You are basically saying the equivalent of, "it doesn't matter if you master extremely basic fundamentals in basketball because being athletically talented is more important and using your athletic talent you can get good at anything, without coaching or studying".
Understanding the theory doesn't relate to playing the right line out of a book. It relates to what happens when you are out of the opening and into the middle game, or when your opponent diverges. If you do not understand why you just made the 10 moves you did in the opening, you are at an extreme disadvantage. The Sicilian, I doubt many players even 2000 have mastered all the variations. But if you pick a specific one and study it, you sure as heck better understand it, otherwise you've just wasted weeks of your time.
WTF are you talking about? You seem to be describing how to make a chess computer and not how any rational human beings approach the game. There is no quantification of position. Qualitative is what human beings do. Do you look at a board and write down formulas to determine your total score?
I really am doubting that you have actually read any opening books as a chess player. It seems like you are trying to rationalize the fact that you don't read them with some sort of idealized vision of chess as looking at the board for 15 minutes and mastering the position, like it's the force or something.
It's a given that two 1400's are probably equally weak when it comes to making stupid moves and blunders. I'll take the 1400 who has studied the opening they are playing every single time over the 1400 who hasn't studied the opening and is attempting to extract diaminds from coal by just looking at the position and trying to figure out the entire game of chess in 5 minutes.
What kind of gibberish is this? Controlling the center is by defintion an abstract theory about what's best. The above is not yet Giuoco Piano since BC5 is not yet played, although it can transpose into Giuoco Pianissimo if BC5 is played next. And I assume you mean 2. ... NC6 otherwise you have described Petrov's.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
