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.
Originally posted by Mahoutany learning process requires memorization. the first can't exist without the latter.
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 h heory is so complex that it defies comprehension by lower rated players such as
myself.
opening theory is not about memorization in the way beginners usually think. it's about understanding. -of course you need to remember what you understood, but in contrast simply remembering the lines is not sufficient.
memorizing lines will not give you the ability to generalize, to react to your opponent's mistakes. only understanding the positions in question will. hence, it's not about memorization.
a good example is database use on rhp: in effect, it gives a 1500 rated player here the complete memorization. yet they still lose their games like a 1500. they don't lose their games like a 2000, a 2200 or a 2600. they lose it like a 1500 regardless of the 'perfect memorization', because their understanding of those perfectly memorized positions is one of the 1500 player.
Originally posted by wormwoodComputers play openings based on opening theory, but yet computers have no understanding. Likewise it is possible for a human to play based on theory with no understanding. Sure, if their opponent then deviates they may not be well placed to find the correct moves, but that is beside the point.
opening theory is not about memorization in the way beginners usually think. it's about understanding
Originally posted by Varenkathat's exactly the point. of what use is a 'theory' which doesn't give you a deeper understanding of future battles, but is instead a mere recording of what has happened in the past?
Sure, if their opponent then deviates they may not be well placed to find the correct moves, but that is beside the point.
Originally posted by wormwoodI don't think anyone is saying that theory without understanding is a good thing for human players. Theory should be backed up with understanding.
that's exactly the point. of what use is a 'theory' which doesn't give you a deeper understanding of future battles, but is instead a mere recording of what has happened in the past?
However, it is possible to know theory without understanding it. e.g I tell someone to play 1... c5 in response to e4. They would then be following theory but could be entirely clueless as to why c5 is good; what it aims for; etc.
Your earlier comment was that understanding is part of theory, with which I disagree.
Originally posted by Varenkanewcomers to chess get murdered every day for playing 1...c5 or any other main response without understanding why they made the move. people like greenpawn specialize in punishing them for lack of understanding. and probably every gambitteer there ever was.
I don't think anyone is saying that theory without understanding is a good thing for human players. Theory should be backed up with understanding.
However, it is possible to know theory without understanding it. e.g I tell someone to play 1... c5 in response to e4. They would then be following theory but could be entirely clueless as to why c5 is good; ...[text shortened]... ; etc.
Your earlier comment was that understanding is part of theory, with which I disagree.
Originally posted by wormwoodI get the impression that either you didn't read my post or what I've written isn't clear. I intended
any learning process requires memorization. the first can't exist without the latter.
opening theory is not about memorization in the way beginners usually think. it's about understanding. -of course you need to remember what you understood, but in contrast simply remembering the lines is not sufficient.
memorizing lines will not their understanding of those perfectly memorized positions is one of the 1500 player.[/b]
to write about the meaning of the term theory and not the relative benefits of memorization
over understanding.
Originally posted by Mahoutit just looked like you still didn't get why "My understanding is that "theory" in chess openings is more or less synonymous with
I get the impression that either you didn't read my post or what I've written isn't clear. I intended
to write about the meaning of the term theory and not the relative benefits of memorization
over understanding.
memorization. " is wrong on a fundamental level, so I tried to explain the reasons better.
Originally posted by wormwoodHave you read the whole post (or is the post confusing :-) - it's just that I'm not intending to say
it just looked like you still didn't get why "My understanding is that "theory" in chess openings is more or less synonymous with
memorization. " is wrong on a fundamental level, so I tried to explain the reasons better.
that memorization is preferable to understanding or that you can have one without the other
or any such argument about what is best to study or to know.
.....just that the meaning of of the word theory when applied to chess does
not refer to "understanding the reasons behind the moves"
Looking at it again perhaps I should have written "...the meaning of the word "theory" is more
or less...etc" or something to be more clear.
Originally posted by MahoutBut, I don't think the meaning of the word chess opening theory is memorization of anything.
Have you read the whole post (or is the post confusing :-) - it's just that I'm not intending to say
that memorization is preferable to understanding or that you can have one without the other
or any such argument about what is best to study or to know.
.....just that the meaning of of the word theory when applied to chess does
not refer to "understand ...[text shortened]... the meaning of the word "theory" is more
or less...etc" or something to be more clear.
Again, I think more appropriate is the theortically best and worst moves according to "history" and present analysis. The theory can exist with or without your memorization of it. You can also learn from theory without memorizing it eg the value of an exchange sacrifice by studying the dragon sicilian.
Originally posted by erikidoYes I agree which is what I had in mind by:
But, I don't think the meaning of the word chess opening theory is memorization of anything.
Again, I think more appropriate is the theortically best and worst moves according to "history" and present analysis. The theory can exist with or without your memorization of it. You can also learn from theory without memorizing it eg the value of an exchange sacrifice by studying the dragon sicilian.
theory is more or less synonymous with memorization.
and
The theory being the current state of the lines already played and currently
thought to be the best moves.
and
To know the "theory" therefore is to have the lines
memorized. To learn the theory would then be to commit the lines to memory.
The later extracts being more explanation and qualification of the first.....
...well I knew what I meant but should have expressed it with more clarity.
Originally posted by Mahoutdid you even read my post? Read the very last sentence again.
Yes I agree which is what I had in mind by:
theory is [b]more or less synonymous with memorization.
and
The theory being the current state of the lines already played and currently
thought to be the best moves.
and
To know the "theory" therefore is to have the lines
memorized. To learn the theory would then be to commit the li ...[text shortened]... the first.....
...well I knew what I meant but should have expressed it with more clarity.
Originally posted by orion25would you play the French defence if you understood not a little theory?
yes, but the question is do you need to know the theory? I think there are other areas were you should spen your time (tactics?). Openings you can play them with little study.[/b]
"You can also learn from theory without memorizing it eg the value of an exchange sacrifice by studying the dragon sicilian."
Yes I read it and understood it and it makes sense. You describe a way of learning from the
theory without memorization.
I think the confusing thing in my original post was to describe theory as being more or less
synonymous with memorization.
This has been interpreted as meaning - theory is memorization - and that's not what I
intended to say. It has also been interpreted as 'memorization is the best way to study
openings" and that's not what I intended either. What I wrote therefore didn't clearly
explain what I meant to say.
Even though I still think that in some instances the term theory can be loosely synonymous
with memorization.. but only in the sense that: "she knows a lot of theory" meaning pretty
much "she has memorized a lot of lines"....but I agree it's not the most accurate way to put it.
Anyway I only intended to comment on the meaning of the word theory in relation to chess openings and how
I used to think it referred to all aspects of opening knowledge...etc,etc...
....it's been better explained by other posts now.