03 Oct '09 12:45>3 edits
I think the problem here is the definition of the word theory and the way it is applied to chess
openings.
My understanding is that "theory" in chess openings is more or less synonymous with
memorization. The theory being the current state of the lines already played and currently
thought to be the best moves. To know the "theory" therefore is to have the lines
memorized. To learn the theory would then be to commit the lines to memory.
I learned this from a note by IM Richard Palliser who has written several opening
books...and I simply took his word for it.
Prior to this I used to think the term theory referred to a more general understanding,
including the reason behind the moves and so on. As a previous poster Paul Leggatt
mentioned I think the disagreement here is probably not about principles or ideas but
about semantics.
So if you accept my definition then "knowing the theory" is distinctly different to having an
understanding that allows you to work something out at the board. Although the line blurs
a little if we accept that memorization often contributes to overall knowledge.
We all seem to agree that the understanding of the reason "why" a best move is a best move
is important and probably more useful than just remembering it. But having said that I think
some of the theory is so complex that it defies comprehension by lower rated players such as
myself.
openings.
My understanding is that "theory" in chess openings is more or less synonymous with
memorization. The theory being the current state of the lines already played and currently
thought to be the best moves. To know the "theory" therefore is to have the lines
memorized. To learn the theory would then be to commit the lines to memory.
I learned this from a note by IM Richard Palliser who has written several opening
books...and I simply took his word for it.
Prior to this I used to think the term theory referred to a more general understanding,
including the reason behind the moves and so on. As a previous poster Paul Leggatt
mentioned I think the disagreement here is probably not about principles or ideas but
about semantics.
So if you accept my definition then "knowing the theory" is distinctly different to having an
understanding that allows you to work something out at the board. Although the line blurs
a little if we accept that memorization often contributes to overall knowledge.
We all seem to agree that the understanding of the reason "why" a best move is a best move
is important and probably more useful than just remembering it. But having said that I think
some of the theory is so complex that it defies comprehension by lower rated players such as
myself.