Chess- Is it all about memorizing lines?

[wheresmybacon]

Originally posted by: Descartes
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.

I like to play chess but my brain just esploded after reading this.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Descartes
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.

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.

Don't be such a pedantic asshat. It was to demonstrate a basic point. Next time I spend 15 seconds trying to demonstrate a game on ATOT I'll be sure to make sure I don't forget the tabiya of openings

[edit]I should also note for those that aren't familiar, the above was algebraic notation, the common format used to record games. I spread it out to make it easier to read.[/edit]

 

[Dissipate]

The best way to improve is to drill key positions. In that sense you are memorizing, but you aren't memorizing specific lines. You are memorizing key positions that you can relate to positions you see in your own games (i.e. pattern recognition). Grandmaster Lev Alburt calls these key positions 'zip files' because when you learn them, they 'unzip' to help with countless other positions you encounter.

Behold:

Chess Training Pocketbook

Study it and you will improve!

Edit:

BTW, speed comes much later. Do not play quick blitz games until you have internalized a number of these key positions.

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: Descartes
Don't be such a pedantic asshat. It was to demonstrate a basic point. Next time I spend 15 seconds trying to demonstrate a game on ATOT I'll be sure to make sure I don't forget the tabiya of openings

[edit]I should also note for those that aren't familiar, the above was algebraic notation, the common format used to record games. I spread it out to make it easier to read.[/edit]

I was only being pedantic about the opening names. I still can't decipher your point. I am really not sure what you are getting at. It seems to be that you think one should not study chess and should just play because studying is only useful once you are good. Whereas my approach would be to study as much as possible because it gives you an edge.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Descartes
Don't be such a pedantic asshat. It was to demonstrate a basic point. Next time I spend 15 seconds trying to demonstrate a game on ATOT I'll be sure to make sure I don't forget the tabiya of openings

[edit]I should also note for those that aren't familiar, the above was algebraic notation, the common format used to record games. I spread it out to make it easier to read.[/edit]

I was only being pedantic about the opening names. I still can't decipher your point. I am really not sure what you are getting at. It seems to be that you think one should not study chess and should just play because studying is only useful once you are good. Whereas my approach would be to study as much as possible because it gives you an edge.

Playing only really helps if you study in detail where you went wrong as opposed to just jumping from one game to another.

 

[sash1]

Originally posted by: DnetMHZ

Originally posted by: Descartes
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.

/head explodes

i think my brain just died, too

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Descartes
Don't be such a pedantic asshat. It was to demonstrate a basic point. Next time I spend 15 seconds trying to demonstrate a game on ATOT I'll be sure to make sure I don't forget the tabiya of openings

[edit]I should also note for those that aren't familiar, the above was algebraic notation, the common format used to record games. I spread it out to make it easier to read.[/edit]

I was only being pedantic about the opening names. I still can't decipher your point. I am really not sure what you are getting at. It seems to be that you think one should not study chess and should just play because studying is only useful once you are good. Whereas my approach would be to study as much as possible because it gives you an edge.

What are you talking about? Have you even read this thread?

I posted plenty of links to resources, including how to drill for tactics, combinations, key positions, etc. All free. All I've said, and I'll say it again for your benefit, is that studying openings does little good if you can't make a reasonable otherwise (e.g. once you're out of the opening book). I gave book recommendations that give a player a foundation of understanding that is absolutely necessary, and that involves basic positional evaluation. Opening study should come later.

Now let's let this die.

 

[jlbenedict]

I remember way back in the day when I used to play alot of chess during my time in the military. Used to play this "nerd" while deployed over in Kuwait back in '96. At first, I could hardly compete... Within six months I could routinely beat the guy.

I read a couple of books wrote by Bruce Pandolfini.
One of them was Chess Openings: Traps and Zaps by Bruce Pandolfini

Excellent book for someone in the beginner to intermediate levels of chess.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Descartes
Don't be such a pedantic asshat. It was to demonstrate a basic point. Next time I spend 15 seconds trying to demonstrate a game on ATOT I'll be sure to make sure I don't forget the tabiya of openings

[edit]I should also note for those that aren't familiar, the above was algebraic notation, the common format used to record games. I spread it out to make it easier to read.[/edit]

I was only being pedantic about the opening names. I still can't decipher your point. I am really not sure what you are getting at. It seems to be that you think one should not study chess and should just play because studying is only useful once you are good. Whereas my approach would be to study as much as possible because it gives you an edge.

Playing only really helps if you study in detail where you went wrong as opposed to just jumping from one game to another.

Exactly. And most people simply don't know why it went wrong, and that requires the ability to analyze the position. The cause might be a simple tactic, something more complex (a passed pawn that keeps pieces pinned to the back rank, a week back rank, etc.) or something more strategic like bad bishops, fractured pawn structure, etc.

Anyway, I agree.

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: Descartes
What are you talking about? Have you even read this thread?

I posted plenty of links to resources, including how to drill for tactics, combinations, key positions, etc. All free. All I've said, and I'll say it again for your benefit, is that studying openings does little good if you can't make a reasonable otherwise (e.g. once you're out of the opening book). I gave book recommendations that give a player a foundation of understanding that is absolutely necessary, and that involves basic positional evaluation. Opening study should come later.

Now let's let this die.

There are SOME useful books that help you understand chess, but tactics "drills" and "puzzles" are a complete waste of time as far as I am concerned. The way I see it, you can play chess at virtually any time you can read a chess book. Therefore if you are going to read, you had better be reading something that isn't "second best" to actually playing. Puzzles and drills are second best to actually playing. Either you spend 30 minutes on each puzzle like you would a real game, thus you might as well be playing a real game, or you spend 30 seconds and turn the page, thus you might as well be playing speed chess against chessmaster.

When you actually play a game of chess, you are going to remember things and recognize the position in the future a lot more readily. That's just the way the human brain works. Reading never sinks in material as well as actually seeing it in person. Just like studying film of a football game versus actually playing one.

Useful books are ones that explain in great detail why certain moves work and why certain moves don't and general ideology.

Openings on the other hand, you will most likely never learn proper openings if you try to learn them by playing. Unless you do some trickery with a computer where you use the same moves they just used on you to learn how to play the other side. That would be far less efficient than just reading a book.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Descartes
What are you talking about? Have you even read this thread?

I posted plenty of links to resources, including how to drill for tactics, combinations, key positions, etc. All free. All I've said, and I'll say it again for your benefit, is that studying openings does little good if you can't make a reasonable otherwise (e.g. once you're out of the opening book). I gave book recommendations that give a player a foundation of understanding that is absolutely necessary, and that involves basic positional evaluation. Opening study should come later.

Now let's let this die.

There are SOME useful books that help you understand chess, but tactics "drills" and "puzzles" are a complete waste of time as far as I am concerned. The way I see it, you can play chess at virtually any time you can read a chess book. Therefore if you are going to read, you had better be reading something that isn't "second best" to actually playing. Puzzles and drills are second best to actually playing. Either you spend 30 minutes on each puzzle like you would a real game, thus you might as well be playing a real game, or you spend 30 seconds and turn the page, thus you might as well be playing speed chess against chessmaster.

When you actually play a game of chess, you are going to remember things and recognize the position in the future a lot more readily. That's just the way the human brain works. Reading never sinks in material as well as actually seeing it in person. Just like studying film of a football game versus actually playing one.

Useful books are ones that explain in great detail why certain moves work and why certain moves don't and general ideology.

Openings on the other hand, you will most likely never learn proper openings if you try to learn them by playing. Unless you do some trickery with a computer where you use the same moves they just used on you to learn how to play the other side. That would be far less efficient than just reading a book.

QFT.. this is why I stopped reading chess books and playing long ago. I need explanation... not to just follow moves someone else made long ago.

 

[iwantanewcomputer]

so you guys arguing need to play and shut each other up...is there any way to post a link and let atot watch?

im about a 1300 player if i am patient and careful. I used that chesmaster x000 game on my comp for a while, but probly forgot everything

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: iwantanewcomputer
so you guys arguing need to play and shut each other up...is there any way to post a link and let atot watch?

im about a 1300 player if i am patient and careful. I used that chesmaster x000 game on my comp for a while, but probly forgot everything

I would get smashed because I never followed my own advice, plus I became so addicted to 1 minute chess that all my long term thinking is completely shot and if it doesn't occur to me in 2 seconds it never will, I'll just sit there wondering what day it is in a semi-catatonic state.