Hans Niemann

[CornfedForever]

Niemann lost with the White pieces against a 2442-elo IM.

In the Uralsk Open, Niemann lost with the Black pieces against a 2366-elo FM.
(True, he also had wins against 2602- and 2603-elo GMs.)

In the World Junior Champs (which most of the star juniors skipped) currently being played, Niemann lost with the White pieces against 13-year old 2480-elo IM Andy Woodward.

In the last round, Niemann lost with the White pieces against Nesterov.

Nesterov is a 2575-elo GM, so perhaps this loss is much less noteworthy than the others. But it does add to the feeling that perhaps Niemann's playing strength is closer to 2600 elo than 2700.

The way I read the crosstable, Niemann had to win to get first because of the tiebreaks. If you look at that final game, Niemann spurred a draw by repetition and 'went for it'. I would have done the same - no one gets a "World Champion" title by finishing 2nd.

[Uri Blass]

If Hans Niemann is rich and I mean really rich then it's quite possible that he bought and read many many chess books written by top players and if this is really true then I'm not surprised that he can beat Magnus Carlsen.

I have heard many a top young player say that they do not read chess books. Heck, many who write them are just out to do what other top players do with their IM/GM titles...make a buck or two. Effort is what makes a top player, not reading books or watching videos.

The question is what do you mean by chess books.

There is a lot of material that you can buy in order to train that also include videos in chessable.
It is not a phsyical book but it has many chess positions to train about them.

The main problem of most chess players is that they have not the talent to memorize a lot of material.

That is certainly true - books these day included 'e-books' or 'videos', etc. They have been a dime a dozen for decades now in one form or another.

We will probably have to 'agree to disagree' on this one - or at least one point. I don't think "The main problem of most chess players is that they have not the talent to memorize a lot of chess material"...but rather that in regards to getting "really good" (and by that I am thinking IM/GM/SuperGM) 'most' young players don't lack for material...they lack focus/motivation and work ethic...'effort' is how I described that earlier.

Money can come into play of course...take the family of Mishra, it was insane what they spent on that boy. But I think that is more an exception than anything else.

I think both are correct in most cases.
If you do not have the ability to become a top player then working hard to get rating of 2500 and not rating of 2300 is not going to make you a top player.

Top players have a better ability to memorize and when you know that you are inferior in your ability to memorize then you have no reason to work hard to make the best you can.

[syzygy]

I think both are correct in most cases.
If you do not have the ability to become a top player then working hard to get rating of 2500 and not rating of 2300 is not going to make you a top player.

Top players have a better ability to memorize and when you know that you are inferior in your ability to memorize then you have no reason to work hard to make the best you can.

It seems to me the memorization part is not going to hold back anyone who is willing (and can afford to) put in the time. The better you get at chess, the easier it will be to memorize opening lines. Also, in general memorization of a certain type of knowledge becomes easier with time. E.g. I think nearly anyone can memorize the quran if they just put in the effort.

So I don't think a very talented child who starts playing chess at a young age and does everything right BUT neglects learning opening theory would be unable to make up for that later.

[Chessqueen]

I think both are correct in most cases.
If you do not have the ability to become a top player then working hard to get rating of 2500 and not rating of 2300 is not going to make you a top player.

Top players have a better ability to memorize and when you know that you are inferior in your ability to memorize then you have no reason to work hard to make the best you can.

It seems to me the memorization part is not going to hold back anyone who is willing (and can afford to) put in the time. The better you get at chess, the easier it will be to memorize opening lines. Also, in general memorization of a certain type of knowledge becomes easier with time. E.g. I think nearly anyone can memorize the quran if they just put in the effort.

So I don't think a very talented child who starts playing chess at a young age and does everything right BUT neglects learning opening theory would be unable to make up for that later.

Do NOT give memorization of Openings so much importance, If you give Carlsen any of the 324 chess positions and give an opening Book up to 12 moves deep to any opponent who is rated between 2650 to 2750 he will NOT be able to beat Carlsen. and the same goes if you give a 12 moves deep opening book to any chess engine rated between 2700 to 2800 it will NOT be able to beat Stockfish playing without any Opening Book
NOTE: Most chess games are decided in the Middlegame stage

[Uri Blass]

I think both are correct in most cases.
If you do not have the ability to become a top player then working hard to get rating of 2500 and not rating of 2300 is not going to make you a top player.

Top players have a better ability to memorize and when you know that you are inferior in your ability to memorize then you have no reason to work hard to make the best you can.

It seems to me the memorization part is not going to hold back anyone who is willing (and can afford to) put in the time. The better you get at chess, the easier it will be to memorize opening lines. Also, in general memorization of a certain type of knowledge becomes easier with time. E.g. I think nearly anyone can memorize the quran if they just put in the effort.

So I don't think a very talented child who starts playing chess at a young age and does everything right BUT neglects learning opening theory would be unable to make up for that later.

Memorization in chess is not only about opening theory and I do not think that memorizing opening theory is the most important part to become a top player.
Top players remember what to do in a lot of chess positions so when they get something similiar they can use their memory to guess the right move in most cases even without calculation.

This is the reason top players are so strong also in blitz time control.

I believe that everyone who can memorize what to do in million chess positions(not only from the openings) can be a top blitz player but not everybody can memorize what to do in a million chess positions.

Edit:I can add that what to do include memorization not only of moves but of some short calculations to do in the relevant positions in order to justify the moves.

[syzygy]

I think both are correct in most cases.
If you do not have the ability to become a top player then working hard to get rating of 2500 and not rating of 2300 is not going to make you a top player.

Top players have a better ability to memorize and when you know that you are inferior in your ability to memorize then you have no reason to work hard to make the best you can.

It seems to me the memorization part is not going to hold back anyone who is willing (and can afford to) put in the time. The better you get at chess, the easier it will be to memorize opening lines. Also, in general memorization of a certain type of knowledge becomes easier with time. E.g. I think nearly anyone can memorize the quran if they just put in the effort.

So I don't think a very talented child who starts playing chess at a young age and does everything right BUT neglects learning opening theory would be unable to make up for that later.

Memorization in chess is not only about opening theory and I do not think that memorizing opening theory is the most important part to become a top player.
Top players remember what to do in a lot of chess positions so when they get something similiar they can use their memory to guess the right move in most cases even without calculation.

This is the reason top players are so strong also in blitz time control.

I would not call that memorization but pattern recognition.

But I agree that calculation is not enough. Even if you can calculate selected lines 10 moves deep, you still need to be able to judge which lines you should look at and you still have to be able to judge whether they are good or bad for you. Once you get good at that, I think you cannot avoid getting good at immediately guessing the right move in most positions.

I believe that everyone who can memorize what to do in million chess positions(not only from the openings) can be a top blitz player but not everybody can memorize what to do in a million chess positions.

I am pretty sure that memorizing the best move in a million positions will not make you a good player. You need to understand the position, so you can extrapolate to positions you have never seen before. You need to have racked your brain on thousands and thousands of positions trying to understand how the position should be played.

To be a top chess player you need to have a general ability to learn quickly, but memorization is just one narrow form of learning (one that does not require understanding).

There is a guy who memorized the French dictionary in 3 weeks and then won the French scrabble championshiop. He still does not know how to speak French.

[Uri Blass]

I think both are correct in most cases.
If you do not have the ability to become a top player then working hard to get rating of 2500 and not rating of 2300 is not going to make you a top player.

Top players have a better ability to memorize and when you know that you are inferior in your ability to memorize then you have no reason to work hard to make the best you can.

It seems to me the memorization part is not going to hold back anyone who is willing (and can afford to) put in the time. The better you get at chess, the easier it will be to memorize opening lines. Also, in general memorization of a certain type of knowledge becomes easier with time. E.g. I think nearly anyone can memorize the quran if they just put in the effort.

So I don't think a very talented child who starts playing chess at a young age and does everything right BUT neglects learning opening theory would be unable to make up for that later.

Memorization in chess is not only about opening theory and I do not think that memorizing opening theory is the most important part to become a top player.
Top players remember what to do in a lot of chess positions so when they get something similiar they can use their memory to guess the right move in most cases even without calculation.

This is the reason top players are so strong also in blitz time control.

I would not call that memorization but pattern recognition.

But I agree that calculation is not enough. Even if you can calculate selected lines 10 moves deep, you still need to be able to judge which lines you should look at and you still have to be able to judge whether they are good or bad for you. Once you get good at that, I think you cannot avoid getting good at immediately guessing the right move in most positions.

I believe that everyone who can memorize what to do in million chess positions(not only from the openings) can be a top blitz player but not everybody can memorize what to do in a million chess positions.

I am pretty sure that memorizing the best move in a million positions will not make you a good player. You need to understand the position, so you can extrapolate to positions you have never seen before. You need to have racked your brain on thousands and thousands of positions trying to understand how the position should be played.

To be a top chess player you need to have a general ability to learn quickly, but memorization is just one narrow form of learning (one that does not require understanding).

There is a guy who memorized the French dictionary in 3 weeks and then won the French scrabble championshiop. He still does not know how to speak French.

I think that you cannot practically memorize a lot of things without generalizing patterns.

Even weak chess players memorize patterns and if they know that King d6 Qd7 against Kd8 is mate they generalize it to a pattern and do not have a problem to see immediatly without calculating that King b6 Qb7 against Kb8 or King f5 Queen g5 against King h5 pawn a6 is mate(I added pawn a6 that is irrelevant because the knowledge about different positions from memorizing one case is practically for a lot of positions).

[syzygy]

I think that you cannot practically memorize a lot of things without generalizing patterns.

The scrabble guy shows that this is possible.

Certainly it is much easier to memorize the best moves in a million chess positions if you have a good understanding of chess. But you don't get that understanding by memorizing moves. E.g. you could memorize the best moves without even knowing the rules of chess, and I doubt that you would automatically gain knowledge of the rules of chess just by learning one (best) legal move in each position.

Anyway, my main point is that there is a difference between memorization and understanding. Learning opening lines is memorization. Learning how to play openings requires understanding. Of course a GM will not just learn the moves in an opening line but will also try to understand why, so that he knows what to look for when the opponent deviates. It will be a mix of general understanding of chess and of memorizing little facts about the specific position. The latter is important to win games at the professional level, but it won't really make you a better player in positions you never saw before.

Even weak chess players memorize patterns and if they know that King d6 Qd7 against Kd8 is mate they generalize it to a pattern and do not have a problem to see immediatly without calculating that King b6 Qb7 against Kb8 or King f5 Queen g5 against King h5 pawn a6 is mate(I added pawn a6 that is irrelevant because the knowledge about different positions from memorizing one case is practically for a lot of positions).

They learn to recognise patterns, but I do not call this memorization. You don't mentally repeat a definition of the pattern in your mind until you think you will still remember it tomorrow and hopefully a month from now.

What I call memorization is the example you gave earlier: the best move in a million specific positions.

I think most people would agree with this distinction between (1) memorization and (2) understanding/comprehension.

If you are good at (2), then (1) becomes much easier if there are general principles behind the facts that you are memorizing.

[Uri Blass]

I think that you cannot practically memorize a lot of things without generalizing patterns.

The scrabble guy shows that this is possible.

Certainly it is much easier to memorize the best moves in a million chess positions if you have a good understanding of chess. But you don't get that understanding by memorizing moves. E.g. you could memorize the best moves without even knowing the rules of chess, and I doubt that you would automatically gain knowledge of the rules of chess just by learning one (best) legal move in each position.

Anyway, my main point is that there is a difference between memorization and understanding. Learning opening lines is memorization. Learning how to play openings requires understanding. Of course a GM will not just learn the moves in an opening line but will also try to understand why, so that he knows what to look for when the opponent deviates. It will be a mix of general understanding of chess and of memorizing little facts about the specific position. The latter is important to win games at the professional level, but it won't really make you a better player in positions you never saw before.

Even weak chess players memorize patterns and if they know that King d6 Qd7 against Kd8 is mate they generalize it to a pattern and do not have a problem to see immediatly without calculating that King b6 Qb7 against Kb8 or King f5 Queen g5 against King h5 pawn a6 is mate(I added pawn a6 that is irrelevant because the knowledge about different positions from memorizing one case is practically for a lot of positions).

They learn to recognise patterns, but I do not call this memorization. You don't mentally repeat a definition of the pattern in your mind until you think you will still remember it tomorrow and hopefully a month from now.

What I call memorization is the example you gave earlier: the best move in a million specific positions.

I think most people would agree with this distinction between (1) memorization and (2) understanding/comprehension.

If you are good at (2), then (1) becomes much easier if there are general principles behind the facts that you are memorizing.

Of course I did not mean memorizing with no understanding.

See also the edit I added earlier(few minutes after I posted but a lot before you replied).

"
"Edit:I can add that what to do include memorization not only of moves but of some short calculations to do in the relevant positions in order to justify the moves."

[Chessqueen]

Imho, caught a cheater, always a cheater! Hang him out to dry!

W H A T he is Passing, Checking his *SS, NO that did NOT happened ===> https://www.youtube.com/shorts/q9cBnR5LWfc
What a MATE==> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nt33-Kp8hd8