Names

Is it really important to memorize all these opening names and also memorize all these moves by heart?? 

and why would ppl bother to name them anyway?  

I am abit of a beginner (because i played chess very sporadically when i was young, and i only took it up seriously about a month or two ago) and I really cannot be bothered to learn all these opening names and such.  

for me, i just look at the board, have a feel about the position of all the pieces and make my best move as possible as i can.  And to improve my skills, i look through the previous chess games of GMs or just watch games of high rated players in Live Chess. 

Do I really have to learn all these openings and their names??  :( 

No you dont.    Actually, if you play 1.e4, the names are quite helpful, because all the games diverge quite quickly into clearly different, named openings, so it's much easier to remember stuff, because you can just think ah this is in a french type position, or this is the italian game, or whatever.  You dont need to go out of your way to learn them though, certainly not if you're just starting.  You will learn them to an extent, without trying, if you're trying hard to play the best moves, and checking what the book moves are afterwards.

umm.. what do you mean I can just think? The names don't play a part in making your best move ... The moves only depend upon tactic or positions of one's pieces on the board.  ??  

May be it will only be useful in describing the game to another person (who knows the names as well).  I don't really see much of the names' use.   what do you say?

Consider the merits of some of the alternative naming schemes   http://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-openings/eco-abandoned

czar.. i was quoting steven's comment... he said "because you can just think," 

yes... exactly artfizz... ppl can make up whatever names they want... these names just frustrate me alot coz i have no clues when ppl describe the opening games by these names.  i can't be bothered to memorize them., lazy me.

As a beginner you don't need to learn alot of openings. It won't matter much. When you got a few 100 more games under your belt you'll have more use of memorizing openings since knowing what opening your game started with will make you think about how the game usually evolves, what to avoid and where you can find weaknesses at your opponent.

For now just try to learn a opening or two that you like and try to look over the most common openings so you know roughly what you should respond with.

umm.. why would i "think" of the names to make a move. what's the use? czar

neneko.. i got over 400 games in live blitz already. and i am still lazy to even try to learn the name of my favourite opening although i know quite a few advantages or disadvantages of it. 

What I mean is that when you get more experience with chess you're going to see why it's a good idea to learn the openings. Until you realise it yourself don't bother learning the openings since it probably won't affect your game the least.

Well, an example would be that in the French defense, which is an easy name to remember, and is an easily identifiable position, certain things tend to be important, like control of the dark squares, d4, and e5, and black's bad bishop.  By putting a name to "the italian game" you will recognise that the same position keeps coming up, and you can remember plans that work well in that position.  It's a similar thing for the spanish, or the scotch.  It just helps you to mentally file away what sort of things you are looking for in different types of positions, and to remember "I'm doing ok, I've been here before."  It's like chess bitesize.  Instead of all of Chess, you are now playing the spanish game, or the italian game.  The names are just a memory aid really, helped with 1.e4 by being all obviously different.  For 1.d4, the different names are harder to separate, as I think the openings are much more blurred, and transpose more. 

As you play more chess you'll see that certain patterns and move sequences occur over and over again. It becomes useful to group certain opening sequences because they have certain tactical and/or strategic ideas in common. For example, one group might be called the French defence. You don't need to call it the French Defence but giving it a name does help - I think - to remember that group of openings and separate it from other groups. If people use a common naming system then it is useful so that they can easily communicate ideas to each other. You may not be so interested in this communication but if you read chess books I think knowing these names could be helpful. As you get more advanced you realise that not all French Defence games are really the same and you really that there is a difference between, say, the Advance variation and the Tarrasch variation. It them becomes useful to use names for ever finer lines. 

umm.. i see ... 

Thanks guys, for the discussion.  For now, I will just play more live chess, watch more games, and will only learn these names when i really have to, e.g read a chess book or whatever.  

This discussion may interest you slightly http://www.chess.com/forum/view/premium_members/game-explorer-feature-request dealing with the issue of openings that start out differently - but end up the same.

These discussions http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/using-books--databases-for-playing-turn-based and  http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/using-books--databases-for-playing-turn-based cover Game Explorer - the chess.com tool that tells you the names of openings - and guides you through the choices of subsequent moves.

Not forgetting of course, "Which is better, a bishop or a knight?" and "I'm up a pawn.  Why hasn't my opponent resigned?"