Well I have started to realize that chess is all tactics and openings • page 1/2 • General Chess Discussion • lichess.org

I used to think I sucked at chess but am realizing that it is all about muscle memory. Even grandmasters are lost if you take away all their memorized lines and tactics. Case in point, read this forum post about chess 960.

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/how-bad-is-carlsen-at-960

I used to think I sucked at chess but am realizing that it is all about muscle memory. Even grandmasters are lost if you take away all their memorized lines and tactics. Case in point, read this forum post about chess 960. https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/how-bad-is-carlsen-at-960

chessloser71

#2

Why do I know this? I have lost probably 99% of my lichess games...but then I learned a couple traps and now win about 1 in 10 matches....if I learn more traps, openings, and tactics I would continue to improve, but my chess IQ hasn't changed...hanging my queen all the time, getting mated by other traps...even when a trap works and I steal their queen I can still botch it...so there is no way anyone is going to say I win via skill...I win from memorization and I suspect that is all grandmasters win by as well.

I mean I can barely complete the captcha to post this message lol! Took me 15 minutes...

Why do I know this? I have lost probably 99% of my lichess games...but then I learned a couple traps and now win about 1 in 10 matches....if I learn more traps, openings, and tactics I would continue to improve, but my chess IQ hasn't changed...hanging my queen all the time, getting mated by other traps...even when a trap works and I steal their queen I can still botch it...so there is no way anyone is going to say I win via skill...I win from memorization and I suspect that is all grandmasters win by as well. I mean I can barely complete the captcha to post this message lol! Took me 15 minutes...

Hitsugaya

edited

#3

If you consider tactics as memorized patterns then yes chess is all memory and visualization to be able to apply the memory.

I don't see how this knowledge can prevent you to suck at chess though, sorry OP!

If you consider tactics as memorized patterns then yes chess is all memory and visualization to be able to apply the memory. I don't see how this knowledge can prevent you to suck at chess though, sorry OP!

Hitsugaya

#4

What is "skill" @chessloser71?

chessloser71

#5

@Hitsugaya said in #3:

If you consider tactics as a memorized pattern then yes chess is all memory and visualization to be able to apply the memory.

I don't see how this knowledge can prevent you to suck at chess though, sorry OP!

I am saying that EVERYONE sucks at chess without memory of tactics and patterns...that's why everyone sucks at chess 960...its why Bobby fischer created random chess (chess 960) because it was more challenging and required more skill than just memorizing lines. So I came to the same conclusion as Bobby fischer and I suck at chess.

@Hitsugaya said in #3: > If you consider tactics as a memorized pattern then yes chess is all memory and visualization to be able to apply the memory. > > I don't see how this knowledge can prevent you to suck at chess though, sorry OP! I am saying that EVERYONE sucks at chess without memory of tactics and patterns...that's why everyone sucks at chess 960...its why Bobby fischer created random chess (chess 960) because it was more challenging and required more skill than just memorizing lines. So I came to the same conclusion as Bobby fischer and I suck at chess.

chessloser71

#6

@Hitsugaya said in #4:

What is "skill" @chessloser71?

Skill is learned. Talent is the ability to learn skill.

@Hitsugaya said in #4: > What is "skill" @chessloser71? Skill is learned. Talent is the ability to learn skill.

Hitsugaya

#7

There is still a correlation between chess skills and chess960 skills, and of course you can say that tactics is memorization since there are a limited number of pieces and a limited number of way to capture a piece; you learn the basics checkmates, fork, skewers and you're good to figure the rest by yourself.

What you forget is strategy and calculation, strategy is what allows us to go so high without calculating everything, and calculation are very often made from unique positions even if the end capture/tactics is probably known.

So in my opinion there is some skills involved, even memorizing is a skill in itself, you can't say doctors have no skills because most of the things they do come from learning and memory, right?

There is still a correlation between chess skills and chess960 skills, and of course you can say that tactics is memorization since there are a limited number of pieces and a limited number of way to capture a piece; you learn the basics checkmates, fork, skewers and you're good to figure the rest by yourself. What you forget is strategy and calculation, strategy is what allows us to go so high without calculating everything, and calculation are very often made from unique positions even if the end capture/tactics is probably known. So in my opinion there is some skills involved, even memorizing is a skill in itself, you can't say doctors have no skills because most of the things they do come from learning and memory, right?

h2b2

#8

All GMs memorise openings, I don't think carlsen is the best at memorising them.

All grandmasters at some stage of a game get "out of book" and then need to calculate. You can tell when that happens when they go from taking 30 seconds to move to 5 minutes or more. Carlsen seems better than most when out of book. That's more of a vision skill I think. being able to see the board in your head after 10 moves.

Carlsen is also good at rapid and blitz, that is more intuition, probably tactics too, I'm guessing the more games you study the better intuition you have.

carlsen might be bad a chess960 but that doesn't mean the only reason he's good at standard chess is because he has memorised openings and tactics. all gms do that.

All GMs memorise openings, I don't think carlsen is the best at memorising them. All grandmasters at some stage of a game get "out of book" and then need to calculate. You can tell when that happens when they go from taking 30 seconds to move to 5 minutes or more. Carlsen seems better than most when out of book. That's more of a vision skill I think. being able to see the board in your head after 10 moves. Carlsen is also good at rapid and blitz, that is more intuition, probably tactics too, I'm guessing the more games you study the better intuition you have. carlsen might be bad a chess960 but that doesn't mean the only reason he's good at standard chess is because he has memorised openings and tactics. all gms do that.

chessloser71 edited

#9

Nobody has any skill unless it is learned. So yes doctors have learned skill the same as a chess player has learned skill. Talent is the amount of effort it takes to reach a certain skill level, and will limit the level of skill one can attain.

chessloser71

#10

@h2b2 said in #8:

All GMs memorise openings, I don't think carlsen is the best at memorising them.

All grandmasters at some stage of a game get "out of book" and then need to calculate. You can tell when that happens when they go from taking 30 seconds to move to 5 minutes or more. Carlsen seems better than most when out of book. That's more of a vision skill I think. being able to see the board in your head after 10 moves.

Carlsen is also good at rapid and blitz, that is more intuition, probably tactics too, I'm guessing the more games you study the better intuition you have.

carlsen might be bad a chess960 but that doesn't mean the only reason he's good at standard chess is because he has memorised openings and tactics. all gms do that.

Yes I agree...vision is merely the ability to recognize previous patterns...when something just "feels" right even though you haven't had time to do the calculations, it is basically muscle memory at work from previous experience. At some point everything becomes lines though...there is no soup for alpha zero.

@h2b2 said in #8: > All GMs memorise openings, I don't think carlsen is the best at memorising them. > > All grandmasters at some stage of a game get "out of book" and then need to calculate. You can tell when that happens when they go from taking 30 seconds to move to 5 minutes or more. Carlsen seems better than most when out of book. That's more of a vision skill I think. being able to see the board in your head after 10 moves. > > Carlsen is also good at rapid and blitz, that is more intuition, probably tactics too, I'm guessing the more games you study the better intuition you have. > > carlsen might be bad a chess960 but that doesn't mean the only reason he's good at standard chess is because he has memorised openings and tactics. all gms do that. Yes I agree...vision is merely the ability to recognize previous patterns...when something just "feels" right even though you haven't had time to do the calculations, it is basically muscle memory at work from previous experience. At some point everything becomes lines though...there is no soup for alpha zero.