1...Nc6 Nimzo opening

What happened to responding to all our comments? I thought you were going to come back to lay down the law. 

If you have interest in winning the game then you can learn all of the rare defences. They're rare for a reason - if the white player knows them really well then black is usually quite worse for it. If you're diverting into the Ruy Lopez then that's great and may suit you better but you seemed to act like it was some smart solution to it when it's simply diverging to another opening.   

2...Nd4 - They have not won a tempo - they have this idea in the Ruy lopez as well, plus they are moving a piece in the opening twice too. Infact if you look  at the opening explorer you will see 2...Nd4 is the second to last choice and the computer does not recommend this at all

In fact what I am suggesting with 2.Bb5 is known as Nimzowitsch defence Pseudo Spanish variation

Fine I checked it out and you are right. While Nd4 is more than playable it is not the sort of tempo-winning move it can often be after a B-N5 move, due to how white can move c3 to dislodge the knight and it's also a very useful move in its own right for the bishop in the Ruy Lopez.  
 

But you only need to know the Nimzowitsch like 2 moves deep and one or two strategies to have a great position and promising attacks. If you are learning the Ruy Lopez you would be 20 moves deep to try to enforce the same thing - by which time you would start to see that 0.01% of the time coming up. Let's call it 0.1% of the time, because clearly some people regularly play it. There are plenty 0.1% of time openings that people learn. I mean if you got a position in the Ruy Lopez as good as you start out with in the Nimzowitsch position most books would call it a day and say you're on your own - white has a huge advantage and a great game.  

I see a lot of people don't seem to get this natural balance of rare vs frequent openings - just because an opening is frequent doesn't mean you should spend all your time on it. Spending some time on infrequent openings makes a lot of sense and will increase your rating more than spending more time 20 moves deep in another opening.  

You're an idiot. End of discussion. 

Just a footnote to make things clear to everyone: you DID in fact clearly state "why would I want to spend time" as in ANY time learning a rare opening. That's what you just SAID. Are we not talking about what you said now? I'm only saying the most absolute basic, non-controversial thing, what is the problem. 

I'm not confusing anything. You're here talking about 64% winning rate against the Nimzowitsch and you advocate playing 2. Bb5 against it allowing the Ruy Lopez, posting a bunch of games with it, then I look at your first game and there's no 2. Bb5 or anything like it, I look at the second game and again nowhere to be found. Do you have a 64% win rate against the Ruy Lopez? If not then why would you allow it? You're basing this 64% on like 20 games? Then you're saying why would you study it when you have a 64% win rate against it, but you want to allow a transposition into the Ruy Lopez. So no man, nothing you're saying makes sense.

If you had a 64% win rate against the Ruy Lopez and a 50% win rate against the Nimzowitsch then it would make some sense what you're saying. It would make sense to say screw this I will go back to familiar Ruy Lopez territory. In no situation would it make sense not to study a defence just because it's rare which you clearly questioned why would you do it, it's in quotes above, why would you do it - that's what was explained to you, why you would do it. Even if you have an overwhelming win rate it STILL makes sense to study the opening. Focusing on your weaknesses is a good idea, but that doesn't mean you can't learn to do things you already know better. Kasparov for example has advocated studying from your losses like most people but also that you can learn a lot from your wins - and you're still not winning a third of the games. 

can you all just shut up? add lines of analysis or go elsewhere.

I don't know what opponents you're facing, because at the 2200 level it appears at over 1.5% of the time in blitz, bullet, rapid and classical. The same applies at the 2000 level, with the amount of games in the Nimzo decreasing as the ratings go down.

game statistics are far less useful with unorthodox openings. smaller sample sizes, sidelines quickly lead to novelties, and the few games you find often just tell you who was the stronger player. Often, the statistics tell you more about a specific trap that players may fall too often for, or specific lines where there hasnt been a consensus on what's best to play.

Instead database should be used to find strong players who play the same things you do and find their more thematic answers to certain variations  than just  w.e the engine throws at you.Best is a combination of both approaches.

I did read that clarification by you, I just meant that you advocate an early Bb5. I don't see how this makes a difference to the discussion. As we found 2. Bb5 isn't bad itself.  

"What I'm saying makes perfect sense but it is somewhat over your head which it shouldn't be as it is not that difficult to understand. The win rate in the Ruy Lopez is irrelevant. I could be scoring 10% with it against a prepared Ruy Lopez player but when I score 64% against  an unprepared Nimzowitch player by using the Ruy Lopez ideas that is the end of the story(the fact they don`t start with 1...e5 and start with 1...Nc6 indicates they may not be comfortable facing the Ruy Lopez which is exactly what my score shows. Can a Nimzowitch player be also a good Ruy Lopez player- of course. Is that what my experience shows - no and as I made it very clear until that continues to be the case I will continue to play the way that I do)."

Fine - so you  claim a Nimzowitsch player is usually bad at Ruy Lopez positions. It seems to me like they could probably avoid that sort of position though as they haven't committed to any pawn strcuture yet. 

"How is that so difficult to understand. I am basing this on 16 games because that is how many times it occurred in 1600 games- not much I can change about."

You're the one arguing it's a big deal, and when people ignored your statistic you kept bringing it up. It basically means nothing. I only entertained your argument under the assumption it was actually valid, don't get the impression it is, 64% out of 19 games could just be statistical chance.  

"I am not sure how you are measuring one third. 64% is way more than a third which for some reason you are saying I am not getting - 64% is almost two thirds."

I said one third, ie. the one third that you lost (or drew to have a 1/3rd score overall). That's clearly what I meant, the 1/3rd that you lost or drew. 

"You are damn right about Kasparov and the fact you can learn a lot from your wins and I`ve been banging on about it since post #1 - What I have learned from my wins is that I should be transposing to the Closed Ruy Lopez (or use the same ideas) when facing the Nimzowitch (if possible) because the Nimzowitch player, in my experience, is struggling with it big time."

I am pretty sure Kasparov meant learn from the games themselves, ie. studying them, not just using the opening again because it worked before. If you're following Kasparov's advice you are studying your wins and how you got them (the 2/3rds success rate you had and also the 1/3rd non-successful ones).    

"As I said studying openings in which you have overwhelming win rate might make sense to you but based on your rating it does seem to have gotten you very far. For me on the other hand it is a pointless waste of time but by all means and as I said above please feel to stick with your approach."

I may not be a strong player myself but I can gaurantee I'd be worse if I threw reason out the window and never looked over any game openings I did well in to see why I actually won and if I could replicate that.

And that's just the 2/3rds you actually won, there's a 1/3rd that you didn't. "overwhelming win rate".... that's probably not even statistically significant based on 19 games. You're acting like you won 80%+ of the games. 

"That is my final answer to you as I see no point in continuing the discussion with someone who does not read what I write, does not know what a transposition is, and is not willing to listen or think."

Don't be so absurd. I've known what the word "transposition" means for almost a quarter of a century. Because I said you were diverting him into the Ruy Lopez you assume I must not not know what the word transpose means? So if I said someone sped past me in traffic today or someone that must mean I don't know the meaning of "overtake"? I even used another word diverge in the same part. I agree we are done now, I would probably have been done sooner but you impressive blitz rating kept me coming back a bit more.