By the heading, I mean that in standard chess there are various openings with the best moves. Studying and knowing these gives a huge advantage to the studying player, whilst someone playing for fun is at a disadvantage.
Fine - that's chess. Much of it is simply memory in the early stages.
What I want to know is if there are variants of chess where studying is not a requirement or as much of one.
In poker for example, yes you need to know rules and various hands (just like knowing how to move chess pieces and start a game). But you don't need to memorise a perfect opening game plan. You can go about the game as you wish without a major disadvantage.
I like chess as a quick game, but dont want to have to effectively go to school just to have a fair game.
So are there variants where the school / study / memory aspect is much less??
Just to add - when I find someone like me who hasn't studied openings then I get fun games. When someone comes along and knows their first 6-7 moves then just becomes me on the back foot (in a game I'm probably supposed to be even or slightly ahead).
Then I lose a piece to memory rather than skill and seems little point continuing as I have less time, less memory of the position.
So again, a chess variant where its more an open board, where there is no set perfect start. Would even prefer a random board after 5 moves or something like that. Less of the memory and more of a game where the best play wins.
<Comment deleted by user>
You're describing the Chess960 variant. The pieces are in random starting positions so you have to play tactics from turn 1.
The fact that the opening book has been developed over all these years (and continues to evolve) means that you can ALWAYS have an advantage over someone who hasn't studied opening theory.
With Endgames on the other hand, once you know your theoretical positions, you know them. You don't need to keep learning but with openings, you have to not just learn but keep updating your knowledge as well.
If you don't want to study openings then play 960.
Just tried Chess 960. Seems like a possible option. Was playing a guy far better than me, but at least it felt more like losing to the better player than someone who is a poor player but just knows the best opening moves and studies.
Im never studying the game, just doesnt interest me enough. But at the same time, can have an enjoyable game when playing someone in the same boat as me - wants to play, has basic principles in head and can have an even game.
I mean, when a 1000-1100 rated guy says "I know this line" after about 10 moves then you know as a 1200-1400 player its now an uphill struggle.
I dont mind if its uphill cos two players got there on their own vs one guy studies the opening time and time again and could do it blindfolded.
I mean, not to refute your point too hard, because I understand the feeling, but you seem to drawing a firm line between memory and skill. It's better to look at it as all experience.
A more experienced player will win against a less experienced player (more often than not).
Studying is one way to become more experienced. Playing lots of games will give the same result too though. Some people will have better retention and will draw benefit more from their study or experience.
It saps your motivation if you think of it as "well he has all this memorization which I don't want to do". Here's the trick:
Focus on 1 white opening and 1 black response to e4. Play the same thing over and over. And over. Seriously. And over. Knock out 20, 50 100 games with whatever openings you choose. Then you will won't feel your opponent is more prepared than you in those openings and you will start being the one with more theory.
You can throw in some study or watching the odd YouTube video about the openings you've chosen. Analyzing your games every time and looking where you made your first mistake is another good practice.
And against those players who are widely versed in theory, you're invalidating 90% of it when you direct the game towards one you want. Then after you have those first 2 openings down, you start widening yourself. Choose something to play for black against d4. And choose something for white when black doesn't play e5, etc. And you can continue to direct games towards what openings you want. If a player has spent hours learning the Ruy Lopez, and you play the French defence, his hours of "memorization" don't matter.
You should also choose openings that are less theory intensive. The Sicilian (black) and Ruy Lopez (white) are a couple examples of rather theory heavy openings. Powerful but not the best ones to start with from what I read. I chose the Scotch and the French, and I find myself getting them on the board a lot of the time.
Another thing that I did was I made an online slide deck of opening positions with their names. Not sure the rules about posting links here but if you want the link you can message me. It sounds silly but you get SO MUCH more comfortable when you at least recognize what your opponent is playing. You start with the basic common ones, being able to recognize the Caro-Kann, or the French, or the Sicilian, etc. But then you start getting to more advanced ones, and ones that go further into the game.
And keep in mind, even grandmasters don't know EVERY opening. They may recognize/name most ones that are commonly played, but humans are creatures of habit and you'll hear even GMs say "I play this opening" or "I don't play that opening". They focus on the ones they like, and your choices will invalidate many openings for your opponent which means you can select what you DON'T play against, to a certain extent.
At a certain rating, you need to have a repertoire of openings but it's surprising how FEW you need to actually cover 95% of games you will play.
@barnsley3000 In other words, you want a chess variant where it is more luck and have fun then strategy, and tryhard study?
The answer is No. Chess is by definition a known-outcome game, based purely upon logical step by step thinking, memory, and creativity.
These things come only with study.
Sorry, but if you want something like that, you are going to have to look elsewhere.
The best I can suggest is antichess, but it is still pretty much that way.
I barely know any theory. Generally i play some obscure variation that falls outside most opening preps or i just play having the opening principles in mind. By avoiding the normal variation i get a lot of situation were we both don't know the best line by hard so we are just playing on skill and experience.
i have won a lot of otb game just by breaking my opponent's morale by playing some crazy and obscure variation.
edit: might want to give some gambits a try like the Urusov gambit