Here, courtesy of Brian Karen, is a
NY Post article by GM Andy Soltis. In it, he makes two main claims. The first is that (many) chess teachers offer maxims like "To improve, you first must study the endgame", "The key to the middlegame is learning the art of long-range planning and strategy", and "To play the opening well is a matter of 100 percent understanding and zero percent memorization." His second claim is that these maxims are false: lower-rated players' games are only settled in the most trivial of endgames; their middlegames are almost invariably determined by tactics, not strategy; and finally, there are openings in which memorization is very valuable.
It's a clever mini-column, but I'm not sure his argument holds up on reflection. Have any of you heard these maxims, offered in the way Soltis presents them? On openings, I've heard - and stated - that understanding is more important than memorization (up to a certain arbitrarily high rating, certainly well over 1500, the USCF average). But that's not at all the same as "100 percent understanding and zero percent memorization"!
The middlegame maxim is even less plausible. I can't recall hearing or reading a teacher pushing anything ahead of tactical skill for beginners and intermediate players. While many teachers find the de la Maza approach shallow, the basic idea that until you're, say, 1800 your first, middle and last name should be "tactics" (I think it might have been Rowson who wrote this) is widely if not universally accepted. (And was long before de la Maza showed up.)
Soltis might be on to something about the endgame, but there too some exaggeration may be afoot. Most of the chess teachers I know think endgame study is useful for students, but to a degree of depth that's rating-relative. Also, the rationale is only partially the specific knowledge; the theory is that one develops a better feel for the pieces by working with them in endings. But I've never met a chess teacher who claimed that one
must first study the ending to improve.
Maybe my experiences are somewhat atypical - but I doubt it, not only based on my firsthand experience as a teacher and student, but also based on my interactions with quite a few other teachers over the years. But if readers find the ring of truth in Soltis's article, I'd like to know about it. And if you can supply details, so much the better!
