Im not saying my game is error free or that my mind is an opening book. All I'm saying is dont make assumptions based on rating.

yes but ratings do have potential to be inaccurate.

anyways, i dont want to argue anymore. I know where I am and you know where you are. Your opening is fine for your level, but not for exceeding it, to sum things up. Have a good day :)

I hang material too, but I atleast I know when a certain move is too much hope chess when it is played on move two

yes it does, that way I can avoid that tactic later. but if you mean opening, yeah it kind of does, say I am playing as black and you play the parham, ok so stick away from e5 for a while until you learn how to play the Qh5 positions or I just simply get better so that way I am playing 1500s who have a clue as how to develop instead of a bunch of 1200s who feel that the Four move mate is the coolest thing since sliced bread. 1... Nf6 it is

what i used there was a clever bit of Sarcasm mixed with seriousness, and a quick explanation about how I study theory, once I worked out the lines I play for about 6 moves then I break and play on my own, however as in most of the openings I play, the natural moves I play extend for something like 8 or 9 moves and I am to lazy to check

Exactly the issue.  It's not at all unusual at the 1200 level.  As a new player on this site, even though I'm somewhat higher rated than that, I have to face my share of 1200's to move up the ranks.  If I play ...e5, the Parham and Qf6 are all I see.

So the point it, it has long ago lost its "surprise value" anywhere EXCEPT higher level chess.  So rank amateurs are used to it.  But anyone 1500-1600 or better finds it laughably easy to neutralize.

To get anything out of it, you HAVE to be Nakamura.  But he discovered that it didn't do him any favors, either, so quickly abandoned it.

It's of no use to anybody at any level, really.

do not speak about things you do not know! they ruy lopez can take an agressive nature. Research and think before you speak gavinator

lol gavinator the ruy lopez being passive... thats the funniest thing you said since the parham is sound at master level

but I dont want to argue this with you. If you arent willing to take friendly advice from people that know more than you, then fine, your loss. im going to stop wasting my time

The Gavinator, my sarcasm was fairly evident in the my use of cliche and my cleverness was using something you didn't understand. plus I don't see it that often except OTB, where it is simple to neutralize, and get play for it, atleast its better than 1. d4

well we did, but we are too lazy to change every line we show as equal when you change what you would play there, so we abandoned it on the basis that we would never come to an agreement

A. I already said rating doesnt matter here its inaccurate and even if you are stronger than me I obviously know more than you, because of my knowledge of book openings. I dont know where you are with tactics and imbalaces, but I know those too.

B.It's not just me, most players aboout 1600 will tell you the parham is terrible. I tweeted to Dan Heisman, a world renown chess teacher and video intructor, and he replied, and I quote "Nakamura gave it up & computers give good ways to meet.[I] don't like [it]"

C.heard of the marshall attack? thats an aggressive line, but even in the closed good attacks on the king get going. here is a quote by silman, and he is trying to show how to defend against the Ruy Lopez

Nowadays, the vast majority of tournament level amateur players answer 1.e4 with the Sicilian, while a few others (who like combative chess) go for the French Defense. Then comes the Caro-Kann, which has been given the stamp of approval by players like Karpov, Anand, and (more recently) Topalov. The rest go for super sharp (but riskier) openings like the Pirc, Alekhine’s Defense, and the Center Counter. Did you notice the absence of 1…e5? While grandmasters still show their respect for 1…e5, most amateur’s avoid it because other openings (excepting the Sicilian) are, quite simply, easier to learn.

Those that toy with playing the Ruy Lopez for Black often get scared away when they realize that they also need to be ready for the Giuoco Piano, the Vienna Game, the King’s Gambit, the Bishop’s Opening, the Four Knights, etc. It does sound daunting! However, those openings can often be tamed by just a little study (Mihail Marin’s wonderful BEATING THE OPEN GAMES gives convincing answers to all the non-Lopez lines that can be thrown at you. You can see my review of that book HERE.), which then leaves them with the real job of learning how to play the black side of the Ruy.

But, why play the Ruy in the first place? It doesn’t shock and awe like Alekhine’s Defense or the Center Counter. However, unlike these popular amateur choices, the Lopez is 100% sound while the others are … I’ll be kind and use the word “problematic”. The Pirc? It’s actually quite hard to master, and takes a lot of skill to avoid being smashed by white’s advantage in space. The Caro-Kann wins by force for Black (John Watson, the famous French Defense guru, is well aware of this, but he’ll never admit it), but nobody is listening. And the Sicilian and French are very sharp openings that require a lot of theoretical knowledge – even then, you will always be walking on a razor’s edge.

The Ruy Lopez, in comparison with all of these other openings, offers a solid position, tremendous flexibility, and many lines are more conducive to understanding than to brute force memorization. In fact, the Ruy Lopez for Black can easily turn into a lifelong romance offering an opening partner that will rarely let you down (you may let it down, but the Lopez will still be waiting when your guilt fades and you once again return to it).

just saw the new comments, the parham is wonderful, great, awesome, and winning. if you plan to stay an amatuer your whole life. You will be the best at what you do: beating amatuers. We will call you the world amatuer champion. :)

Have you listened to a word Ive been saying? Ive been saying that its not all about lines, ITS ABOUT IDEAS!!!!! Please actually read what I right before you make a smart remark like that.

ANYWAY, I want to stop talking about this. If you dont want to take advice from superior players (not me specifically, but every strong player and everyone who has been telling you) then that is fine by me, I dont care if you want to stay in a rut. You obviously arent listening to me, so lets just stop this pointless arguing. I hope you have a good amatuer chess career

I know my lines, I just don't go flaunting them because as soon as I get past 6 moves I am playing on my own based on thematic knowledge, aka trade dark square bishop, exchange sac on the c file, get pawn to e5 or f5, rip open h file,

bonus points if they can guess the opening based on the themes here, then post it

Seems some confuse the existence of a model with the superiority of a model.  Just because the matrix system is a way to play, doesn't say anything about whether or not it's a good or better way to play.

If you want to reduce chess to a few algorithms, chess programs have been doing that for decades.  With all the time and money people like Kauffman have put into the development I don't think it's a coincidence that the matrix stuff hasn't been used.  Maybe you'd like to test that for us, and show how the matrix system gives better evaluations / moves than the standard way of playing...

Because also true is different doesn't mean better either.  The burden of proof is on the fringe ideas not the other way around.  The standard way of playing has been tested by people for nearly a century.  Alternatively, maybe you can point to some strong players today using the matrix system.  Although considerably weaker than the best players, anyone around 2400-2500 would be good.

Just because a person plays an idea doesn't make the idea good.  The objective value of a move is entirely unrelated to who is playing it.  I'm sure you and I both have played moves GMs would play (even if we didn't know it ;)  The strength has to do with the position, not our fingers.

Notice Kasparov could have opened exclusively with 1.a3 and still have kept a high GM rating.  Only a silly fan-boy would take that to mean 1.a3 is a good opening just because their hero plays it.

I agree, from what I've read about it, it dosen't seem stupid or bad... I don't know if it's the best way to play :)  but it still makes sense.

just like the King's Gambit can't be refuted

it still isn't refuted, even BOBBY FISCHER DID NOT BELIEVE IT WAS REFUTED EVEN AFTER, I REPEAT-AFTER-, HE PUBLISHED HIS FAMOUS "BUST TO THE KING'S GAMBIT" HE LATER PLAYED IT IN MANY GAMES AND WON, WON, WITH IT, AGAINST LARRY EVANS MOST NOTABLY.

that should prove my point