I’ve been a member here for close to two years, and I have an important list of questions:

First, why don’t people resign when they are clearly in a lost position!  Second, why do people resign when I’m about to deliver checkmate?  This is very disrespectful.

What’s the best opening?  After you’ve discussed it and come to a consensus, send me a message so I can show you my original and undisputable refutation.

Why do I still have to pay for features like videos and chess mentor?

If you had a time machine and could gather all the strongest chess champions throughout history and allow them 6 months of modern opening preparation who would be the best in a blindfolded sack race?

Why are all women clearly inferior to men at chess?

I was playing an opponent the other day and they called me a “dummy-head”.  Is there anyway I can disable communications with this person or block their harassment?

Was Bobby Fischer a good or bad person?  Only choose one answer.

My opponent is using vacation time.  How can I report this?

Finally, what’s the precise mathematical formula for converting a chess.com rating into a USCF, FIDE, or overall life rating?

ANSWER MY QUESTIONS IMMEDIATELY!

You forgot:

I'd like to make a parody forum thread. What's a good one to pick.

Indeed.

>Finally, what’s the precise mathematical formula for converting a chess.com rating into a USCF, FIDE, or overall life rating?

For those of us who do not have a UFCF/FIDE rating, it would be interesting to know an approximate formula.

--CM

 why did you save up two years worth of questions, and then dump them on us?

 Pricky doesn't want an approximate formula, she wants a PRECISE formula...immediately!

Please, nobody entertain pricky the clown.

Without adequate answers to such questions, how are we going to ever solve more difficult questions like pancakes vs. waffles vs. French Toast?

Also,

Which is better, knights or bishops, I know one is clearly better, so please tell me the answer.

Stalemate is confusing, isn't it the same as regular checkmate?

Draw by anything other than agreement (repetition, perpetual, 50-moves) is wimpy and dumb and I don't like it.  Also draw by insufficient material is confusing to me, who knows maybe someone will mess up and get mated!

In live chess my opponent's clock ran down to zero and then he made a move and suddenly he had time again I'm sure this was cheating/a glitch so how can it be fixed?

I started playing chess a week ago and just found 2 games of Morphy's and now I know he was the best player ever!!  Did you know he had a lot of natural talent?  Also he demolished amateurs in 20 moves so that proves he would be the best against today's top players too.  Please post how you agree with me.

I'm new to correspondence chess, but I'm sure using databases is illegal or immoral or both.  You say it's been the accepted practice for hundreds of years?  Oh well, I'm going with my gut on this.  My conception of CC chess is simply OTB chess with a very long time control.

Isn't 960/Fischer random better than regular chess?  I'm only rated (way way lower than 2400) but I don't like how opening memorization hurts regular chess.  With 960/FR we have to think on our own!  So what if I literally know next to nothing about chess, somehow I think chess is played out anyway, 960/FR is for me.  Please post how you agree with me.

"Is chess related to intelligence? Please, no dumb answers."

Ah, I forgot one!  Nice

We await your answer Borgqueen.

Maybe they just don't want to memorize openings or play against people who have.

The players I've seen talk about going against memorized openings seem paranoid because in my opinion they and their peers don't know any openings anyway so why sweat it.

So maybe the don't want to memorize openings or play against people who have... fair enough.

Advocacy of 960 is not limited to lazy paranoid schizophrenics.  If you're above a certain level in standard chess, its because you've memorized a lot of lines and end up playing a lot of opponents who have memorized a lot, and maybe you're tired of that.   OTOH If you're not at master level, you will have to start memorizing things like the Sicilian and so on to get your game to the next level, and maybe you're not interested in that.  So I would say interest in 960 has to be across the spectrum of skill levels.

On a more serious note regarding 960 and to illustrate that the whole issue with opening memorization is most definitely relevant to all skill levels, which OrangeHonda, I think you have repeatedly disputed.

I'm not good at live chess, or specifically 15:10 live chess which is the the longest game a lot of people are willing to play.  But in that format, I cannot go an entire game without making a blunder at some point just through oversight, even after having a strong opening and a decided advantage through the  early stages of the game.  So I quit playing live chess.  But even so,  I repeatedly beat players in the 1200-1400 range with the Lolli variation of the Fried Liver simply because they had never seen it, and also a specific trap in the Budapest. But that gets boring after a while, so I quit playing them even though the Fried Liver was often a guranteed win against the level of people I was playing against.  But who cares.  That's just to illustrate that the memorization issue is relevant at all skill levels.

I'm bias in at least one respect.  When I got my first chess program, I think it was chessmaster5000, after a game I would immediately look up the book moves.  Usually going to about move 5 made me feel confident (I knew absolutely no openings at all).  I did this for a few years, just casually looking up an opening when I wasn't sure.  So in that way I may feel like openings are unimportant because it's been a long time since I've felt that helplessness in the first 5 or so moves.

To argue for my case however, opening traps may win you a game, but they can easily be avoided by adopting a system so openings are hardly necessary at the class level.  A respected system like the colle, london, stonewall, etc can take you far.  

I'm convinced games are won and lost at the sub-master level primarily on mastery of the basic skills.  Basic tactics, basic endgames, basic strategy and how consistently you're able to apply them.  Also basic technique such as assuming the best reply, not playing for traps, etc.

I still don't know what your favorite piece is, including that ultra-refinement, excepting the queen.

 i've always been fond of the iron...or if that one is taken, then the little car...zoomzoomzoom