"John Savard" wrote in message
...
On my web page, at

http://www.hypermaths.org/quadibloc/chess/cheint.htm

I discuss the fact that people have, particularly in recent times,
proposed variants of chess in order to remedy perceived defects in the
game.

I note three things about the game of chess that could be considered
as problematic.

The first is that playing chess reasonably well - that is, with a
reasonable expectation of winning once in a while against the
opponents one is likely to meet at the local chess club - involves, at
too early a stage as to be appropriate for the beginning learner, a
need to commit to memory a considerable amount of opening theory.

John Savard

I read your post, all quite interesting/amusing However, I strongly
disagree with the above statement about opening theory. I think many
players become strong (or stronger) when they come to the realisation
that rote memorisation of opening theory is far less important than other
things, e.g. tactical ability, endgame skills, understanding of opening
set-ups
and related pawn structures, etc. I would go as far as to say that a
talented
beginner who doesn't waste time studying opening theory won't be a beginner
for very long. I know a certain IM who claimed he studied nothing but
tactics until around 1800.
Obviously at some point, theory becomes important but mostly it is learnt
through understanding positions, not rote memorisation. Just my opinion,
cheers
Iain