This is why I've been avoiding chess. Anything that feels too memory intensive just doesn't seem fun to me. It's not creative strategy it's just rote memorization. Same goes for Rubik's cubes.
I’ve always felt the same way - perhaps it’s because I get to work on interesting and hard problems at work so when I get home I’d rather veg out. I’d much rather swim for an hour than do something mentally taxing and memory intensive.
If I did something more manual I think I would perhaps crave that kind of outlet so I can kind of see the appeal. At least playing good chess does involve some improvisation and creativity.
Cubing on the other hand has not appealed to me at all since I learnt it was mostly just memorising some patterns and executing them. It just feels like a trick - it is impressive the speed some people can do it but I’ve never really been impressed by people being able to solve them.
I don't find chess memory intensive, I almost never directly commit opening variations to memory. I play around with them, often against myself, until I get a feel for what works, what's speculative and what's bad.
Preparing for a tourney or a big game is different obv. but usually you just play enough that openings and their values become a part of you
Yeah I'll play the shit out of a Civilization game. That's like "3D chess" in a way because every unit has their own moves, you're restricted by the hexagonal board, you have to know which unit to use in which context.
> So what I really need to study are the famous openings and the responses to various openings. Seems like a memory game.
That's a bit like saying that mathematics or physics are "memory games", because if you take them seriously, you can't avoid learning tons of equations and formulas instead of being creative (and reinventing the wheel by going from scratch) :)
While memorization is certainly a part of chess:
* Opening theory doesn't matter all that much up until a very high level. Below the master level chess is about 90% tactics. You can pretty much rely on general principles in the opening, and your opponents won't know enough opening theory anyway (so what's the point of eg. memorizing the theory on Sveshnikov Sicilian up until move 15 if you won't ever use it, because your opponents will be out of the book and play something non-theoretical long before).
* Even when opening theory does matter, memorizing it blindly is not enough, and it would be very difficult when done that way. It has to be based on deeper understanding of themes, underlying structures, typical plans for both sides in resulting types of positions, crucial squares to control etc.
I remember this scene in "Suits" (courtesy of YT recommendation algorithm - never watched the entire series, so I don't know the broader context). A guy without a degree walks into a law office, and the boss says "sorry, we only hire from Harvard", but he demands that the boss opens some law book on a random page, and he can quote the book perfectly like a savant. Needless to say, he's hired on the spot : )
This is what people may imagine the work of a lawyer revolves around, but it's not really accurate.
Rather than studying specific moves and move orders, you can get away with studying plans and ideas if you're under 2000 FIDE. I got to around 2200 online with minimal opening memorisation, but with a lot of time dedicated to solving tactical puzzles (2-3 hours every day for around 3 years).
To be fair it only gets memory intensive at higher levels (lets say 1800 fide, 2100 online) - before you can get by playing any not directly lossing line you want, since your opponents won't know how to punish it optimally.
It's still a systematic "issue"... If it is virtually impossible to find a great or optimal move (even given enough time) without having to memorize tons of specific situations first that's kinda annoying.
It's a similar thing with competitive programming. At first the problems are solvable by thinking, but at some point you just need to memorize (or even copy paste) a solution that someone else figured out first... Boring.
You can say this about any human endeavour - to learn language, you need to learn idioms. To write, you need tropes, to program you need patterns, etc. Every sport has its plays.
I think learning games of past masters in chess is akin to learning culture when studying language. Standing on the shoulders of the giants and all that jazz.
Especially since learning openings is not pure memorization of moves - its about learning ideas, stories, patterns. For example:
Najdorf variation of sicilian begins with 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 [0]. Idea behind 5. ... a6 is that black wants to play e5+d5 to gain full center, but 5. ... e5 right now losses due to 6. Bb5+. So black prevents it with 5. ... a6.
Now white has a lot of choices - 6. Bg5 is very concrete, you need some memorization, 6. Bc4 is sharp but a bit more rational, 6. Be3 is very popular today, ... All of them have some benefits and drawbacks.
I play 6. Be2, since it gives white some pressure, while having very classical idea-based play and black players often lack preparation for it. Black can now play 6. ... e6 (transposing to Scheveningen sicilian) or 6. ... e5, staying in the Najdorf waters. Lets look at 6. ... e5. White plays 7. Nb3, 7. Nf3?! is worse since white will soon want to play f4 or f3 and knight would block that pawn.
Now is the interesting part: the only good move in this position is 7. ... Be7 and it's hard to see why. A lot of my online games are already decided in next few moves.
Point is, that 7. ... Nbd7 (with idea of developing light squared bishop on b7) interferes with black control of d5, so white can gain bind on d5 via playing a4 (preventing b5) and then either Bc4 or Nd2-Nc4-Ne3 takes full control of d5. This is crucial, since if black is unable to achieve d5 pawn break he has nothing to play for in these structures, so game is totally in white hands.
Secondly 7. ... Be6 fails very concretely to 8. f4 Qc7 9. g4 exf4 10. g5!, which was pioneered by Julio Kaplan, a former junior chess world champion and software chess pioneer. We get to a very open position where black king is stuck in the center, so white gets a very pleasant attack for free.
I hope this gives you a bit of a counterpoint towards why learning theory is not only annoying.
In that last "very concrete" line, the 'fish seems to think 8 ... Qc7 is a mistake, and after e.g. 8 ... Be7 instead it puts W at just +0.2, which is perfectly respectable but not obviously better for W than after 7 ... Be7. If you try the same g4; fg g5 idea, then it thinks B is actually slightly better after either ... Nfd7, or even better ... f3; Bxf3 Nfd7. I'm a patzer so don't claim to know what the key differences are, but one is that in the variation Stockfish prefers the white pawn on g5 is hanging so he has to either spend a move playing something like h4 or else sacrifice it.
There is another finesse: the point of f4 is that White is threatening f5, attacking the bishop. Black then has a choice between retreating (which losses time) or Bxb3 (which gives White bishop pair).
The point of Qc7 is that black can answer f5 with Bc4 - offering trade of bishops instead, which is a bit disappointing for White. This is why this resource with g4 is important.
So if Black plays Qc7 White needs to know about this g4 temporary pawn sac. If Black plays exf4 then White recaptures with Bxf4, gaining a nice advantage in development. Finally if Black plays anything else (like Be7) White gains comfortable advantage with f5.
Stockfish isn't convinced that f4 Be7; f5 Bd7 does give W a comfortable advantage; it reckons +0.2, same as if B plays ... Be7 after Nb3 as you recommend. Again, I'm a patzer so if your intuition/calculation says W is much better I don't have any refutation other than "computer says no". W's position sure looks more fun to play, with prospects of a kingside attack, but that's often true in the Sicilian even when things are objectively fairly balanced.
If I let it sit for a while, it vacillates between wanting to play g4, a3, Be3, h4, etc., and a quieter approach with Bg5xf6, Qd3, Nd2. At depth 46 it prefers the latter but only gives it +0.1 even though its PV shows W winning the d-pawn. Aaaand at depth 48 it's switched back to Operation Pawn Storm, though it wants to prepare with a3 and Bf3 before playing g4 and h4. And back to the piece manoeuvres and winning the d-pawn at depth 50. Still only +0.1, though.
(But computers are awfully good defenders, and maybe this is one of those positions that's much better for the attacking side when humans rather than computers are playing.)
Black here has very natural development - his bishop is controlling d5, his knight is ready to jump to d4 (thus interfering with white heavy pieces control of d-file). Because of this he can liquidate into drawn (if difficult due to worse pawn structure) ending after 11. O-O-O Nd4 12. Nxd4 exd4 13. Nd5 Bxd5 14. exd5
This way of playing with Bg5 is not so popular anymore today (Be3 is way more topical, with either O-O or O-O-O), but it offers clearest comparison to analogous position.
Black needs to control d5 and e6 is off-limits, so he has to reroute his bishop to c6, where his knight wants to be. White has lasting pressure on d-file, it's not clear how black will develop his knight and he cannot easily force pieces off the board.
So what I really need to study are the famous openings and the responses to various openings. Seems like a memory game.
Computer games were always more fun.