What do You Think?

There seems to be basicly two categories. Those of us who play by the book, and those of us who rely heavily on intuition and feel

Question for thought: Which is the best approach for a player? Memorizing endless lines of analysis, or basicly relying on instinct and solid principles? Or, do you perhaps feel that a balance of both approaches is best?

Truthfully, I have struggled with this question for a long time, and haven't yet resolved it. Although, I think I lean toward the alance theory, because both approaches seem to have their pluses and minuses.

I was just interested in hearing what everyone else thought on this.

Only memorizing lines is a very bad idea.

Sometimes I think I need to just let the game sway back and forth, to and froe, like a little boat on the ocean, and learn to accept the motion of the waves. If the sea's calm, set your sites on Timbucktoo and go. But if it's stormy, brace against the wind and try not to sink.

Lines are good up to a point. That is, like navigation, to find your bearings and set a course. And instincts, even when they're outrageously ridiculous, when taken into consideration, these moves can be the best source of strategy I can think of. Every game is highly emotional.

Now how's that for a simile? 🙂

Originally posted by mindbuzz
Sometimes I think I need to just let the game sway back and forth, to and froe, like a little boat on the ocean, and learn to accept the motion of the waves. If the sea's calm, set your sites on Timbucktoo and go. But if it's stormy, brace against the wind and try not to sink.

Lines are good up to a point. That is, like navigation, to find your be ...[text shortened]... f strategy I can think of. Every game is highly emotional.

Now how's that for a simile? 🙂

Ha, when I go Bermuda, aliens always capture me in the triangle. 😉

LOL!!

Originally posted by kingisdead
There seems to be basicly two categories. Those of us who play by the book, and those of us who rely heavily on intuition and feel

Question for thought: Which is the best approach for a player? Memorizing endless lines of analysis, or basicly relying on instinct and solid principles? Or, do you perhaps feel that a balance of both approaches is best? ...[text shortened]... eir pluses and minuses.

I was just interested in hearing what everyone else thought on this.

The best is to find a balanced middle, relying more on solid principles and calculation and intuition than on memorization.

That is basicly what I am thinking on the issue, too.

I have tons of boks and monographs with literally THOUSANDS of moves and move trees. It's enouygh to drive anybody insane! Basicly, it is very dry reading and playing through them, especially if their is no explanation of the THINKING behind them. Rote for rotes sake seems to me to be highly unfruitful.

And alot of the books say well, white plays x move then black plays x move then white plays x move etc, etc, on and on. Problem is they don't tell you what to do over the board in the VERY unlikely event your opponent has not read the same book, and makes a different move. What good does rote do then? A big fat ZERO!

But, on the other hand, if you want to save time, having sequences of moves memorized helps tremendously. Especially in the openings. But then again, it robs you of the fun and joy and excitement of thinking for yourself. But then again, you may not WANT to think for yourself when time is rushed. So on and on goes the dilemna and there is no end in sight. Except, as we said, a happy middle ground somewhere.

Now if you had a memory like Fischer, on the other hand, memorizing sequences of moves would be a breeze! You could have the best of both worlds!

Oh well...(Sigh)

Understanding general theory is key. The book with the move trees can build a framework for an overall generalizable concept. I.e., this move can to this or that and serve such and such a purpose, etc; but be careful of this response because so and so, yada yada...

In correspondence, game strategy (opening, mid, end) and a skillful understanding of chess theory fundamentals (like, tempo and intiative, especially) and tricks like forks, pins, counters, when to sacrifice, etc... seeing check and projecting mate -- these are much more important skills than memorizing large numbers of move trees. Think cognitively. When you understand the "why" behind your moves, you can increase the strength of each move tenfold by choosing the move that serves the most purpose.

Of course, the more you know experience-wise, about moves and move trees etc, the better you might play blitz. For sure.

Originally posted by SirLoseALot
Only memorizing lines is a very bad idea.

True, very true! Especially in the KG.

Fundamentally, I think chess strength is all about pattern recognition. It's the only explanation for chess skill that accounts for all the strange correlations between intelligence, knowledge, and experience.

For example: it is said that Einstein was a terrible patzer, even though he was a good friend of Lasker and obviously had the capacity...

It is also well-known that learning more theory doesn't substitute for practice, even when "theory" = "more general principles."

Finally, it is well-known that computers yet don't play as well as humans, especially in non-tactical situations. Why is this? Since, after all, chess comes down to one giant math problem, and computers are much much better at math than people.

If (a) knowing general principles doesn't work alone, and (b) raw intellectual ability doesn't work alone, and (c) raw intellectual ability plus general principles don't work alone (as evidenced by the numerous perfectly intelligent patzers who study), what does work? We know raw knowledge of opening lines doesn't work.

Well, grandmasters almost universially started very young and hence had many years to devote many hours to the game. What does all that time develop?

I believe from all this evidence that the primary mechanism to learn chess is pattern recognition. That's the only intellectual skill that is built by raw experience, and that's the only way to explain why a perfectly intelligent person can cram their head full of tactics and opening theory and general principles and still suck.

It is also the only way to explain why computers don't just crush everyone -- because the math problem that is chess is still too complex to solve, and humans are better at getting around the actual calculation with pattern-recognition based heuristics. (I think if they want to make a genuinely strong computer, it would have to combine computer tactical ability with some very advanced AI stuff which drew conclusions from a massive database of games as to which types of positions led to which result, and how.)

It's recognizing "in this type of position, I should be looking for a bishop sacrifice to expose the king" and "in this type of position I should be starting a minority attack" and "in this type of position I shouldn't grab the pawn because my queen will either get trapped or stranded horribly offside." A.k.a. "positional evaluation" a.k.a. "pattern recognition."

That suggests a role for opening theory too: to get one to the kinds of positions that one recognizes, and thus knows how to play. Of course, real improvement comes from increasing the pool of such positions. For example: I occasionally can just utterly trash superior players in the KG. Players who will utterly destroy me in the sicilian. Not because I know KG theory dozens of moves deep or anything. But because I know the kinds of positions that come out of it, from playing hundreds of games with it. So I know, for example, that if they start making a pawn mass on the kingside that I can rip a hole in the center and win. I don't need to memorize lines for that. I have enough experience doing so to know that's an effective plan in that sort of position.

Originally posted by paultopia
For example: I occasionally can just utterly trash superior players in the KG. Players who will utterly destroy me in the sicilian. Not because I know KG theory dozens of moves deep or anything. But because I know the kinds of positions that come out of it, from playing hundreds of games with it.

Finally, it is well-known that computers yet don't play as well as humans, especially in non-tactical situations.