4 ms·

My dad was a master chess player in my country when I was growing up so I know all the moves but I never had the interest to go further than that. So what I re

My dad was a master chess player in my country when I was growing up so I know all the moves but I never had the interest to go further than that. So what I really need to study are the famous openings and the responses to various openings. Seems like a memory game. Computer games were always more fun.

8n4vidtmkvmk 3y ago
This is why I've been avoiding chess. Anything that feels too memory intensive just doesn't seem fun to me. It's not creative strategy it's just rote memorization. Same goes for Rubik's cubes.
- INTPenis 3y ago
  Yeah I'll play the shit out of a Civilization game. That's like "3D chess" in a way because every unit has their own moves, you're restricted by the hexagonal board, you have to know which unit to use in which context.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- stephen_g 3y ago
  I’ve always felt the same way - perhaps it’s because I get to work on interesting and hard problems at work so when I get home I’d rather veg out. I’d much rather swim for an hour than do something mentally taxing and memory intensive. If I did something more manual I think I would perhaps crave that kind of outlet so I can kind of see the appeal. At least playing good chess does involve some improvisation and creativity. Cubing on the other hand has not appealed to me at all since I learnt it was mostly just memorising some patterns and executing them. It just feels like a trick - it is impressive the speed some people can do it but I’ve never really been impressed by people being able to solve them. Perhaps those are unpopular opinions though!
- FergusArgyll 3y ago
  I don't find chess memory intensive, I almost never directly commit opening variations to memory. I play around with them, often against myself, until I get a feel for what works, what's speculative and what's bad. Preparing for a tourney or a big game is different obv. but usually you just play enough that openings and their values become a part of you
- erfgh 3y ago
  Just play chess960. It is a better game.
smatija 3y ago
To be fair it only gets memory intensive at higher levels (lets say 1800 fide, 2100 online) - before you can get by playing any not directly lossing line you want, since your opponents won't know how to punish it optimally.
- Double_a_92 3y ago
  It's still a systematic "issue"... If it is virtually impossible to find a great or optimal move (even given enough time) without having to memorize tons of specific situations first that's kinda annoying. It's a similar thing with competitive programming. At first the problems are solvable by thinking, but at some point you just need to memorize (or even copy paste) a solution that someone else figured out first... Boring.
  - smatija 3y ago
    You can say this about any human endeavour - to learn language, you need to learn idioms. To write, you need tropes, to program you need patterns, etc. Every sport has its plays. I think learning games of past masters in chess is akin to learning culture when studying language. Standing on the shoulders of the giants and all that jazz. Especially since learning openings is not pure memorization of moves - its about learning ideas, stories, patterns. For example: Najdorf variation of sicilian begins with 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 [0]. Idea behind 5. ... a6 is that black wants to play e5+d5 to gain full center, but 5. ... e5 right now losses due to 6. Bb5+. So black prevents it with 5. ... a6. Now white has a lot of choices - 6. Bg5 is very concrete, you need some memorization, 6. Bc4 is sharp but a bit more rational, 6. Be3 is very popular today, ... All of them have some benefits and drawbacks. I play 6. Be2, since it gives white some pressure, while having very classical idea-based play and black players often lack preparation for it. Black can now play 6. ... e6 (transposing to Scheveningen sicilian) or 6. ... e5, staying in the Najdorf waters. Lets look at 6. ... e5. White plays 7. Nb3, 7. Nf3?! is worse since white will soon want to play f4 or f3 and knight would block that pawn. Now is the interesting part: the only good move in this position is 7. ... Be7 and it's hard to see why. A lot of my online games are already decided in next few moves. Point is, that 7. ... Nbd7 (with idea of developing light squared bishop on b7) interferes with black control of d5, so white can gain bind on d5 via playing a4 (preventing b5) and then either Bc4 or Nd2-Nc4-Ne3 takes full control of d5. This is crucial, since if black is unable to achieve d5 pawn break he has nothing to play for in these structures, so game is totally in white hands. Secondly 7. ... Be6 fails very concretely to 8. f4 Qc7 9. g4 exf4 10. g5!, which was pioneered by Julio Kaplan, a former junior chess world champion and software chess pioneer. We get to a very open position where black king is stuck in the center, so white gets a very pleasant attack for free. I hope this gives you a bit of a counterpoint towards why learning theory is not only annoying. [0] - in algebraic notation, for those interested in learning it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algebraic_notation_(chess) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algebraic_notation_(chess)
AntoniusBlock 3y ago
Rather than studying specific moves and move orders, you can get away with studying plans and ideas if you're under 2000 FIDE. I got to around 2200 online with minimal opening memorisation, but with a lot of time dedicated to solving tactical puzzles (2-3 hours every day for around 3 years).
V-2 3y ago
> So what I really need to study are the famous openings and the responses to various openings. Seems like a memory game. That's a bit like saying that mathematics or physics are "memory games", because if you take them seriously, you can't avoid learning tons of equations and formulas instead of being creative (and reinventing the wheel by going from scratch) :) While memorization is certainly a part of chess: * Opening theory doesn't matter all that much up until a very high level. Below the master level chess is about 90% tactics. You can pretty much rely on general principles in the opening, and your opponents won't know enough opening theory anyway (so what's the point of eg. memorizing the theory on Sveshnikov Sicilian up until move 15 if you won't ever use it, because your opponents will be out of the book and play something non-theoretical long before). * Even when opening theory does matter, memorizing it blindly is not enough, and it would be very difficult when done that way. It has to be based on deeper understanding of themes, underlying structures, typical plans for both sides in resulting types of positions, crucial squares to control etc. I remember this scene in "Suits" (courtesy of YT recommendation algorithm - never watched the entire series, so I don't know the broader context). A guy without a degree walks into a law office, and the boss says "sorry, we only hire from Harvard", but he demands that the boss opens some law book on a random page, and he can quote the book perfectly like a savant. Needless to say, he's hired on the spot : ) This is what people may imagine the work of a lawyer revolves around, but it's not really accurate.

8n4vidtmkvmk 3y ago

This is why I've been avoiding chess. Anything that feels too memory intensive just doesn't seem fun to me. It's not creative strategy it's just rote memorization. Same goes for Rubik's cubes.

INTPenis 3y ago
Yeah I'll play the shit out of a Civilization game. That's like "3D chess" in a way because every unit has their own moves, you're restricted by the hexagonal board, you have to know which unit to use in which context.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
stephen_g 3y ago
I’ve always felt the same way - perhaps it’s because I get to work on interesting and hard problems at work so when I get home I’d rather veg out. I’d much rather swim for an hour than do something mentally taxing and memory intensive. If I did something more manual I think I would perhaps crave that kind of outlet so I can kind of see the appeal. At least playing good chess does involve some improvisation and creativity. Cubing on the other hand has not appealed to me at all since I learnt it was mostly just memorising some patterns and executing them. It just feels like a trick - it is impressive the speed some people can do it but I’ve never really been impressed by people being able to solve them. Perhaps those are unpopular opinions though!
FergusArgyll 3y ago
I don't find chess memory intensive, I almost never directly commit opening variations to memory. I play around with them, often against myself, until I get a feel for what works, what's speculative and what's bad. Preparing for a tourney or a big game is different obv. but usually you just play enough that openings and their values become a part of you
erfgh 3y ago
Just play chess960. It is a better game.

smatija 3y ago

To be fair it only gets memory intensive at higher levels (lets say 1800 fide, 2100 online) - before you can get by playing any not directly lossing line you want, since your opponents won't know how to punish it optimally.

Double_a_92 3y ago
It's still a systematic "issue"... If it is virtually impossible to find a great or optimal move (even given enough time) without having to memorize tons of specific situations first that's kinda annoying. It's a similar thing with competitive programming. At first the problems are solvable by thinking, but at some point you just need to memorize (or even copy paste) a solution that someone else figured out first... Boring.
- smatija 3y ago
  You can say this about any human endeavour - to learn language, you need to learn idioms. To write, you need tropes, to program you need patterns, etc. Every sport has its plays. I think learning games of past masters in chess is akin to learning culture when studying language. Standing on the shoulders of the giants and all that jazz. Especially since learning openings is not pure memorization of moves - its about learning ideas, stories, patterns. For example: Najdorf variation of sicilian begins with 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 [0]. Idea behind 5. ... a6 is that black wants to play e5+d5 to gain full center, but 5. ... e5 right now losses due to 6. Bb5+. So black prevents it with 5. ... a6. Now white has a lot of choices - 6. Bg5 is very concrete, you need some memorization, 6. Bc4 is sharp but a bit more rational, 6. Be3 is very popular today, ... All of them have some benefits and drawbacks. I play 6. Be2, since it gives white some pressure, while having very classical idea-based play and black players often lack preparation for it. Black can now play 6. ... e6 (transposing to Scheveningen sicilian) or 6. ... e5, staying in the Najdorf waters. Lets look at 6. ... e5. White plays 7. Nb3, 7. Nf3?! is worse since white will soon want to play f4 or f3 and knight would block that pawn. Now is the interesting part: the only good move in this position is 7. ... Be7 and it's hard to see why. A lot of my online games are already decided in next few moves. Point is, that 7. ... Nbd7 (with idea of developing light squared bishop on b7) interferes with black control of d5, so white can gain bind on d5 via playing a4 (preventing b5) and then either Bc4 or Nd2-Nc4-Ne3 takes full control of d5. This is crucial, since if black is unable to achieve d5 pawn break he has nothing to play for in these structures, so game is totally in white hands. Secondly 7. ... Be6 fails very concretely to 8. f4 Qc7 9. g4 exf4 10. g5!, which was pioneered by Julio Kaplan, a former junior chess world champion and software chess pioneer. We get to a very open position where black king is stuck in the center, so white gets a very pleasant attack for free. I hope this gives you a bit of a counterpoint towards why learning theory is not only annoying. [0] - in algebraic notation, for those interested in learning it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algebraic_notation_(chess) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algebraic_notation_(chess)

AntoniusBlock 3y ago

Rather than studying specific moves and move orders, you can get away with studying plans and ideas if you're under 2000 FIDE. I got to around 2200 online with minimal opening memorisation, but with a lot of time dedicated to solving tactical puzzles (2-3 hours every day for around 3 years).

V-2 3y ago

> So what I really need to study are the famous openings and the responses to various openings. Seems like a memory game. That's a bit like saying that mathematics or physics are "memory games", because if you take them seriously, you can't avoid learning tons of equations and formulas instead of being creative (and reinventing the wheel by going from scratch) :) While memorization is certainly a part of chess: * Opening theory doesn't matter all that much up until a very high level. Below the master level chess is about 90% tactics. You can pretty much rely on general principles in the opening, and your opponents won't know enough opening theory anyway (so what's the point of eg. memorizing the theory on Sveshnikov Sicilian up until move 15 if you won't ever use it, because your opponents will be out of the book and play something non-theoretical long before). * Even when opening theory does matter, memorizing it blindly is not enough, and it would be very difficult when done that way. It has to be based on deeper understanding of themes, underlying structures, typical plans for both sides in resulting types of positions, crucial squares to control etc. I remember this scene in "Suits" (courtesy of YT recommendation algorithm - never watched the entire series, so I don't know the broader context). A guy without a degree walks into a law office, and the boss says "sorry, we only hire from Harvard", but he demands that the boss opens some law book on a random page, and he can quote the book perfectly like a savant. Needless to say, he's hired on the spot : ) This is what people may imagine the work of a lawyer revolves around, but it's not really accurate.