How to memorize opening theories

I don't try to memorize names and telephone numbers. It get's memorized after using them often. So it goes the same for my chess openings.

Here is how I practice my opening theory: Before I play an opening, I already have a pawn structure in mind.
For the passed 30 days, I've been practicing a pawn structure and it changed my opening repertoire. So in a way, I'm learning more than just a mainline. I've learned or more like got familiarized with a new opening tree. The responses to the opening is often changed by my opponents, which changes my plans most of the time. But the aim to place the three pawns, the 2 knights, maintaining my two bishops and to castle king side, has often succeeded but at a cost to who has the advantage. My blitz rating has increased in the passed 30 days, by trying to play the King's Pawn Game: Leonardis Variation.
What's nice is there is puzzles for lots of openings....
lichess.org/training/Kings_Pawn_Game_Leonardis_Variation/white
lichess.org/training/Kings_Pawn_Game_Leonardis_Variation/black

lichess.org/insights/Toscani/acpl/openingFamily/period:30
lichess.org/@/Toscani/perf/blitz

youtu.be/kZH_WKuqh5c

You might want to try these methods:

youtu.be/mHdy1xS59xA

I use chessable and only practice the opening that my opponents play. This cuts out
the number of moves that need to be practiced that I will never see at my level.

@MrPushwood said in #15:
> You don't need to memorize opening theory.
>
> And if your opponent throws some off the wall move in there, now what? All your memory is useless.

@blundererxd said in #1:
> I am declaring this respectfully. Please do not say anything that are similar to:
> 1) "You don't need to memorize opening theory"
> 2) "At ... rating, you don't need to memorize opening theory and long opening lines to prep against your opponent"
> 3) "Memorization is not effective or even useless"
>
> This is a formal forum post seeking legitimate advices, not jokes that waste everyone's time. If you have helpful advice, post it. The people who need it would find it helpful. For the people who aren't interested in this topic or want to argue about the justifications behind memorizing such things, it is for another forum post. So, hope you guys provide insights for everyone!
>
> Remember, we are only discussing the how, not why, nor who or when.

@MrPushwood What you have said directly go against the first thing I said that should not be said because it simply provides no value to anyone. If you want to talk about your opinion, then fine, not in this forum topic, since the purpose of this forum topic is not to justify memorizing opening theories. Please post after you have read through literally the first #1 post of this entire topic. I think I have made this very clear in the beginning, you are not contributing anything positive to the community.

I do not appreciate your answer to this forum topic since what you have said means nothing under this forum topic. I appreciate all other users who have directed me and the community to correct resources to study openings.

Here is the thing: out of politeness, I would like to respond to what you have said. What you have said might be largely correct. But it doesn't matter. Since you have completely no regard to what the community is trying to look for. From what you have posted, it seems like you are interested in engaging in negative communication that noone required in the first place only to satisfy your own demand of posting a large amount of forum comments.

You completely dismissed the entire purpose of this forum just to try to post something you want to post, not what others need. I do not understand how your actions are polite and respectful.

Maybe scid vs pc is useful for this. When you play a game against an engine using an opening book, as soon as you try to make a move that is not in the opening book, the GUI warns you that the move is not in the opening book, do you still want to play. So you could play several short games (only until you get out of the opening book) and learn for each game why certain move you wanted to play is not commonly played (according to the chosen opening book). Note that with this method, what UCI engine you use does not matter since as long as the moves are in the book, it is the GUI that is selecting the moves, not the engine. Scid vs PC comes with 4 opening books.

@blundererxd I would suggest you not memorize theory in the old way, the best way to learn lines that worked for me is to know the exact reasons why a move should be played, it would simplify the learning process
also learning the chessboard patterns should be more straightforward that learning the annotation
and as @kajalmaya said: practicing against an engine with moves written should help to learn since they will get you to the most unexpected line rather than throwing random moves after four turns like normal players

To understand the opening concept, I don't think it's done by memorizing one opening line. Repetition does not help me stay mentally active. So I tend to play mechanically when I do that. I now believe it's not the opening line that needs to be memorized, but the position that can be reached by different openings. I think memorizing a positional pattern is better than learning the way to get to it. By problem solving an opening, I find it easier to understand it's strategy and I think it becomes a familiar opening tree. I don't think chess engines truly understand a pattern. If they would they could plan a pattern or transpose to another pattern, offering traps on the way.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transposition_table

youtu.be/sdrPL-R43gM

Every chess player must study openings.

Beginners, just need to understand the opening concepts, but must focus on puzzles.
Average club players, can study a bit deeper on some openings they can force and some defenses.
Experts need a solid opening repertory for white and for black.
Titled players need a complete repertory, with their own preps.

I won two thematic tournaments just because I knew the concepts and usual moves behind those openings. I had sparse knowledge but enough for me to play faster and more precise. With that I performed 300 points above my rating (2450 vs 2150).

Though there are many openings that I'm very lame. But I'm convinced that if I study and practice well enough all possible openings my opponents can throw, then there is a potential to reach that mark in my actual rating.

@blundererxd said in #24:
> @MrPushwood What you have said directly go against the first thing I said ...

Basicaly it's the violation of the regulations "Remember, we are only discussing the how, not why, nor who or when."
Mister Wood Pusher seems to be comment counter oriented.
He won't answer you something you asked for. There are most likely several reasons for that, anyway the comment counter is ticking haha

There is no How. You've either got it or you don't. Do you really believe some system is gonna make it all better. Waste of time. How is waste of time. At least Why is interesting. And @MrPushwood 's comment was more true then not.