lichess.org
Donate

is it worth it to concetrate on opening/midgame memorization as intermediate??

Ryan_Malikov

A year ago when I started playing chess i always thought that a key to good game is just pure analysis ,but a few months ago without me noticing i started playing on pure memory till midgames,and because of this i am getting REALLY bad when it comes to endgames or confusing openings,but by playing on mostly by memory i am getting 90%+ on openings/midgames,so i wonder should I keep that style of playing for solid midgames or to start concetrating on my game vision?

A year ago when I started playing chess i always thought that a key to good game is just pure analysis ,but a few months ago without me noticing i started playing on pure memory till midgames,and because of this i am getting REALLY bad when it comes to endgames or confusing openings,but by playing on mostly by memory i am getting 90%+ on openings/midgames,so i wonder should I keep that style of playing for solid midgames or to start concetrating on my game vision?
RemRus

You are very bad at puzzles. 1100 in puzzles and 1500 in rapid. This is weird. Play 15 games to calibrate your rating.

You are very bad at puzzles. 1100 in puzzles and 1500 in rapid. This is weird. Play 15 games to calibrate your rating.
the-cisco-kid

Not much good about a solid middle-game position that you don't really understand, which is what you will get if you rely on memorization. That's why you see people say "I do well in the opening, but then I can't find a good plan".

Not much good about a solid middle-game position that you don't really understand, which is what you will get if you rely on memorization. That's why you see people say "I do well in the opening, but then I can't find a good plan".
kindaspongey

"... Most internet players think that 30 5 [(30 minutes with a five second increment added every move)] is slow, but that is unlikely slow enough to play 'real' chess. ... Many internet players are reluctant to play slower than 30 5 so you might have to settle for that as a 'slow' game." - NM Dan Heisman (2002)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627010008/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman12.pdf
That was back in 2002. These days, you might have to settle for 15+10.
"... Review each of your games, identifying opening (and other) mistakes with the goal of not repeatedly making the same mistake. ... It is especially critical not to continually fall into opening traps – or even lines that result in difficult positions ... Read many annotated game collections ... By looking at entire games, the aspiring player learns about openings, middlegames, and endgames all at one fell swoop. Playing through annotated games spurs improvement as the reader learns how good players consistently handle common positions and problems. ..." - NM Dan Heisman (2007)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627062646/https://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman81.pdf
Maybe, you can find something useful at https://lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/what-books-to-read-for-improvement-rating-1400-1500-fide.

"... Most internet players think that 30 5 [(30 minutes with a five second increment added every move)] is slow, but that is unlikely slow enough to play 'real' chess. ... Many internet players are reluctant to play slower than 30 5 so you might have to settle for that as a 'slow' game." - NM Dan Heisman (2002) https://web.archive.org/web/20140627010008/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman12.pdf That was back in 2002. These days, you might have to settle for 15+10. "... Review each of your games, identifying opening (and other) mistakes with the goal of not repeatedly making the same mistake. ... It is especially critical not to continually fall into opening traps – or even lines that result in difficult positions ... Read many annotated game collections ... By looking at entire games, the aspiring player learns about openings, middlegames, and endgames all at one fell swoop. Playing through annotated games spurs improvement as the reader learns how good players consistently handle common positions and problems. ..." - NM Dan Heisman (2007) https://web.archive.org/web/20140627062646/https://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman81.pdf Maybe, you can find something useful at https://lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/what-books-to-read-for-improvement-rating-1400-1500-fide.
KMcGeoch

Simple answer is no. There are two main reasons for it.

  1. You don't understand what you're memorising. So even with perfect memory recall you don't understand why moves are chosen and if opponent makes the slightest deviation from what you memorised you won't know how to handle the position.
  2. Even if you get a good position you would lack the chess skills to convert it.

Strong players learn opening principles, middlegame concepts, improve tactical vision and have good endgame skills. Just memorising opening moves can never compensate for that.

Simple answer is no. There are two main reasons for it. 1. You don't understand what you're memorising. So even with perfect memory recall you don't understand why moves are chosen and if opponent makes the slightest deviation from what you memorised you won't know how to handle the position. 2. Even if you get a good position you would lack the chess skills to convert it. Strong players learn opening principles, middlegame concepts, improve tactical vision and have good endgame skills. Just memorising opening moves can never compensate for that.
GrataNonPersona

@kindaspongey said ^

"... Most internet players think that 30 5 [(30 minutes with a five second increment added every move)] is slow, but that is unlikely slow enough to play 'real' chess. ... Many internet players are reluctant to play slower than 30 5 so you might have to settle for that as a 'slow' game." - NM Dan Heisman (2002)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627010008/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman12.pdf
...

I wouldn't say so, I am finding games easily through the player pool for 90+30. It's a really long format and most people won't have time or frankly, desire to play such long games, but it's definitely possible to play, no need to settle for rapid if you wish to play slower chess, Lichess is the only place on the internet where classical chess is still very much alive.

@kindaspongey said [^](/forum/redirect/post/pGqqJQBV) > "... Most internet players think that 30 5 [(30 minutes with a five second increment added every move)] is slow, but that is unlikely slow enough to play 'real' chess. ... Many internet players are reluctant to play slower than 30 5 so you might have to settle for that as a 'slow' game." - NM Dan Heisman (2002) > https://web.archive.org/web/20140627010008/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman12.pdf > ... I wouldn't say so, I am finding games easily through the player pool for 90+30. It's a really long format and most people won't have time or frankly, desire to play such long games, but it's definitely possible to play, no need to settle for rapid if you wish to play slower chess, Lichess is the only place on the internet where classical chess is still very much alive.