Originally posted by erikido"But, that doesn't make theory the memorization of theory."
Once again theory doesn't refer to memorizing lines. Theory in my mind is what the moves which have been studied are theoritically better or worst in a specific position. You can memorize theory if you like. But, that doesn't make theory the memorization of theory.
And yes most STRONG players will know at least some theory because it is necessary a ...[text shortened]... ntage is or why your endgame is superior or worst yet hang a piece or lose to a simple tactic?
I reckon the point is that if you don't memorize it then you don't know it.
Originally posted by MahoutFor the most part yes. But, you have to understand the ideas in addition to having it memorized. This is the reason theory is regarded as poor for the lower levels. They don't have the understanding. Learn how to understand a position before you start to "memorize moves"(the moves will actually make sense when you begin to have an understanding of the game so it reinfoces the ideas and helps you to more easily memorize). I must mention that some openings obviously are more theory heavy than others.
[b]"But, that doesn't make theory the memorization of theory."
I reckon the point is that if you don't memorize it then you don't know it.[/b]
This is the reason theory is regarded as poor for the lower levels. They don't have the understanding.
I'd disagree with that. Lower level players can understand the basics of an opening. A lower level character can understand the important squares and how to get there. Therefore a lower level player can achieve some level of understanding.
The problem is that a lower level player will get more out of studying tactics and perhaps some strategy rather than spend time on memorizing lines. The 2000+ crowd generally has a good foundation of strategy as well as tactics and end game. The position that an opening can put you in becomes more important. Small positional advantages mean nothing for lower rated players.
Originally posted by erikidoI agree and I think the interesting question is not so much what the best move is but - why is it the best move?
For the most part yes. But, you have to understand the ideas in addition to having it memorized. This is the reason theory is regarded as poor for the lower levels. They don't have the understanding. Learn how to understand a position before you start to "memorize moves"(the moves will actually make sense when you begin to have an understanding of the ga ...[text shortened]... ly memorize). I must mention that some openings obviously are more theory heavy than others.
Originally posted by MacpoIts great advice!
If you want to memorize something, don't memorize lines, but thematic moves. That's very useful, and requires almost no effort. For instance, in the Catalan, I am getting used to such moves as a4, Qc2-xc4-c1, early Rd1, Nf3e5 and even Nf3d2, etc.
Originally posted by EladarBut, a lot of lower level players have a hard time understanding what a good and a bad endgame is and even sometimes don't understand which minor piece is better which pawn structure is better etc. I did mean to involve a little something about tactics and endgames(I thought I did) But, was in a hurry. If you don't know what a winning endgame is then you don't know what a good endgame is.
[b]This is the reason theory is regarded as poor for the lower levels. They don't have the understanding.
I'd disagree with that. Lower level players can understand the basics of an opening. A lower level character can understand the important squares and how to get there. Therefore a lower level player can achieve some level of understanding.
T ...[text shortened]... in becomes more important. Small positional advantages mean nothing for lower rated players.[/b]
There is also the fact that you will be out of theory in about 5 moves at lower levels and you need to be able to punish it with either tactical or positional understanding(which I don't care what you say-their are some fair level club players that I play that show very little understanding of a positional advantage).
And I must add to you eladar that if you play a perenyi attack almost NO ONE understands the clear strategical aim. THe english attack (theory)is very hard to comprehend from a below A class player(believe me I am about A class and it is taking some quite hard work to really understand it). This is why most people have a hard time with a lot of opening books-because it is hard to just find the right squares for your pieces etc. The theory in a lot of cases is SO much deeper than that. Another example where it be very difficult to just find the theoretical moves would be the kings indian defense.
I think the word "theory" is greatly overvalued, and that it is easy for people to disagree over semantics when they probably agree on principle.
For instance, if you know the scholar's mate, you know "theory" (it is probably the first theory anyone learns), and it is hardly a mistake to learn that before you learn king-and-pawn vs king. If your goal is to play better chess, it is a practical matter to learn how not to lose in 4 moves before worrying about losing or drawing when there is only a pawn left on the board-you have to get there first!
Is learning the ins and outs of the Yugoslav attack the best use of an amateur player's time? It depends on what brings them joy in playing the game, but it doesn't have to be a waste.
If they are learning only move sequences, it's a waste. But if they are learning chess concepts of time, force, relative material values and how to gauge sacrifices and combinations, tactics, and even defense in the course of studying the Yugoslav Attack, then I think the time is worthwhile.
And if they keep losing to the guy down at the local club or pub who plays the Dragon, then I would say it is time well spent if they turn things around and win one.
Sometimes how you are learning determines whether or not what you are learning is meaningful.
Paul Leggett
another point, not wishing to a offend to many ppl here..... but high rated chess played are usually mad with no social skills, ur sympathetic.. but sometimes they make it hard to be... ... Bobby Fischer syndrome
not all... i have met some very nice ones... but in my experience the crazies out number them 2-1 at least ...go to ur local chess club n see...
i say enjoy the game ... but don't get in too deep!
Originally posted by Black Star UchessSo in other words people play chess...Some people aren't very socially adept. So some people who play chess will be socially inept just as any other sport, game etc. Just as some will be aholes, some will be cheats, and some will be great all around people. You should stop seeing people for what they do as opposed to who they are. Chess players that are completely socially inept are socially inept people who play chess.
another point, not wishing to a offend to many ppl here..... but high rated chess played are usually mad with no social skills, ur sympathetic.. but sometimes they make it hard to be... ... Bobby Fischer syndrome
not all... i have met some very nice ones... but in my experience the crazies out number them 2-1 at least ...go to ur local chess club n see...
i say enjoy the game ... but don't get in too deep!
I must add that most people at the top of anything "don't have much of a live" outside of what they do. Thats what makes them get to the top. There is nothing wrong with just wanting to have fun. But, if you want to be good then you will have to put in a lot of work at anything you do.
it is true yes, don't want to be mean... just online u do see some gremlins in these some of these ppls personalities come out .... am talking about the ones who are gratuitously rude, agree to do well in something you must make sacrifices... was a harsh comment ... i don't want to upset ppl who love the game....
Some people with aspergers rise to a high level in chess.
The game does seem to attract proportionally more people with poor social skills and
questionable dress sense than other comparable activities. I don't believe this is
co-incidental but inherent in the nature of the game and it's requirements.
It is a credit to the chess community that skill over the board is more highly valued than dress
sense, social status, social skills or any of the other frippery of modern day living.
One of the minor pleasures of being a member of a chess club is that moment on a Thursday
evening when I think I have to get ready to go out then realize - it's chess club...I'll go as I am.
that is true , i hate the phrase 'asperges' tho... i think its like male sexism... (as in most who are branded are academic men) ... don't think, smile n be dumb, then ur sane!
'dyscalculia' - another new one, the inability to calculate a percent is just as common. 'asperges' is such weak character definition that soon enough everybody will have a syndrome.
i knew this chap who was diagnosed and no sooner it became a self fulfilling prophecy... I can't do X, Y , Z ... i need a bubble! like bull, ur just a bit of a geek.
Originally posted by EladarOpening theory is not about memorising lines, that is plain wrong.
Opening theory is simply memorizing lines. If your opponent does this, then the best answer is that. It is really only useful for those who are playing against other people who have memorized the lines. Or more exactly, those who have memorized the lines and knows how to punish those who make the wrong moves.
If you are playing against someone who simpl ...[text shortened]... ll help you because now all those hours spent memorizing the "right moves" have been wasted.