Hacker News Reader

Comment by dogruck | Hacker News Reader

Vanilla chess is tremendously captivating. I think only a narrow segment of hyper experts crave a variant.

The problem with chess is that what makes it so addictive is the effect of memorizing openings. Opening theory adds strategic depth, flavor, and a landscape to what would otherwise be a dry, abstract, overly tactical game. It also allows psychological warfare and an element of surprise which isn't possible in variants with randomized starting positions. At the same time however everybody bemoans the fact that you need to memorize openings. I don't see an easy way to solve this conundrum. I understand the situation in Bridge is somewhat similar but I know nothing about Bridge.

Class B player chess here.

Yes and no. What would make you think that memorizing openings is so addictive? Unless you're playing chess for a living, master 2 or 3 openings (queen or kings side) is more than enough and usually so much more effective than knowing superficially a wide range of openings.

Not that true also that defined openings will put the game in a more tactical rather than strategic position. It depends on the opening, and mostly the strategic vs. tactical approach depends on the middle game and on the type of players. Look at Casablanca (strongly strategic) and Tal/Morphy (strongly tactical).

While most people concentrate on memorizing as much as openings the possibly can, I do recommend to learn more end-game variants. Even average chess players (Class C, B, A) don't usually have a good understanding of end-games and that's what makes the different between a good players and a very good player (ie. IM).

> While most people concentrate on memorizing as much as openings the possibly can, I do recommend to learn more end-game variants.

That cannot be emphasized enough.

I've even had players offer me a draw in a classical king vs king+rook situation.

When I learned chess in the GDR we practiced endgames ad nauseum but openings were left until very late.

There's something I don't understand about people who think things like this. Let's go for a simple thought experiment. You're sitting down to play a player who is somewhat stronger than you. He plays 1. Nh3 - a quite awful move of which there will be little to no opening theory on simply because it's so bad. How confident are you now about your chances? I think most players are fully aware that even given such awful opening play, the stronger player will still win in chess.

Chess openings are insidious and certainly the reason the vast majority of players never improve. Imagine a player loses in 10 moves. Naturally he's going to blame his opening. The reality is that he lost because he made some massive tactical blunders. But in either case there are two options here. The first is to go look in a database or book and see where he went wrong. The second is to actually begin the long and difficult path towards improvement that begins with hundreds of hours of work in tactical exercises and deep analysis.

It's not hard to see which most players end up picking. And this becomes a recurring process. They lose another game because of tactical mistakes and go look up and see what they should have played and try to memorize that. And they do this over and over and over. And the next thing you know they repeat some mistake they made long ago because they forgot the right move. In the end their rating stagnates, their play never improves, and then go and complain that they just don't have the "talent" to improve. But it's of course complete nonsense. Beginners love to focus on opening traps, but the reality is that opening studies are the trap in and of themselves!

Since you mentioned it, situation in Bridge is quite different. Memorising can't give you such a considerable advantage against people who have studied less. This is also one of the many reasons that the game will not be dominated by computers in the near future at least. I have met many chess friends, even a grand master that are playing bridge fanatically because the game remains more "enjoyable".

To reduce the stale opening procedure and introduce greater opening-diversity, there is a great variant specifically designed with that in mind called chess960, or Fischer Random.

In case you haven't checked it out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess960

Do you play a fair amount of chess? Your love of opening theory stands in contrast to the majority of chess players as far as I'm aware. Rich strategic themes emerge from complicated tactical positions. This is as true in variants like chess 960 as it is in standard chess.

That's not true at all. You don't have to be a "hyper expert" to get tired of standard chess or to enjoy trying new games. I am not a even a regular expert at chess and I enjoy a few chess variants from time to time.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com