Atomic chess differs from standard chess in that when a piece is captured, all adjoining pieces are also eliminated, as well as the capturing piece. As a result of this rule, white has a much bigger advantage than in standard chess. Black can lose in three moves simply by making the wrong first move. There are a number of opening sequences that require precise play from black in order to survive.

Referring to atomic chess on chess.com compared to lichess (another chess site), watcha wrote, "I'm surprised how much players here are theoretically unaware. There was tons of theory developed for atomic, and I don't see these known lines played, not even from strong players." To which 123a567 replied, "I think atomic players here prefer to have fun by thinking of moves by themselves instead of memorizing theories. If you just want to become a stronger player, this site really doesn't suit you."

The above comment made me ponder what I want from playing atomic chess. Obviously, I'd like to be a strong player. To become a strong player one needs to memorise a whole series of opening traps, how to set them, and how to refute them. It reminds me of how I beat beginners in three moves - which is not satisfying. By learning complex opening traps one can beat players of my level (around 1950) using memorised sequences, much like beating 1500-rated players in three moves. Yet I wonder whether I want to do this. The fun part of chess is being engaged in a battle of wits where neither side can predict the outcome, not in executing a pre-determined sequence of moves like a robot.

In atomic chess there are dramatic turn-arounds and deadly threats inherent in innocent-looking positions. By using long memorised lines one avoids engaging in a real battle between two minds. If the other person does not know the refutation then one wins the game, but one does so without being creative, without even thinking. Instead, it is the player on the receiving end of the opening trap who is called upon to be creative to find the correct defence in real time.

On the other hand, learning to play well in the sense of being able to make plans and generate tactics relies on learning patterns. So a degree of memorisation is necessary. I guess there is a line in the sand between memorising sequences of moves and learning patterns. For example, it is enough to know that a queen can mate by herself provided the kings are not next to each other. One does not need to memorise the mating sequence.

I think I want to take a middle path, to learn two or three opening traps but not to rely on them too much. However, I want to know how to defend against known opening traps, as I am sick of losing quickly to high-rated players who use these lines.

Are these considerations relevant to standard chess? Standard chess also has opening traps, which all strong players must learn. However, these do not start with move one and are generally less forcing than is the case in atomic chess. Grandmasters need to learn opening variations, sequences that may go as deep as 30 moves into the game. In addition, these sequences have many branches, whereas in atomic the defender often has no choice, as their moves are so called "only" moves.

There is a famous game between two top players where one player, Caruana, prepared a long forcing line, which Ding Liren, had to face over the board. Ding's win was a triumph for the human brain thinking creatively on the spot, arrayed against a mechanical scheme prepared by his opponent with the help of a team of silicon and carbon-based advisors. Luckily for Ding and for chess, either Caruana's memory made a slip or else his pre-game analysis was flawed. Caruana had tried to manufacture a win by means of a marathon feat of analysis and memory, one that carried him for 17 moves. What he did was not dishonest, underhanded or even unsporting. Yet it was deeply antithetical to the idea of chess as being a contest of two minds over a chessboard.

Is it better to have fun or to improve by learning killer openings?