Why are some openings considered "for beginners"?

But what else would you judge their skill on? Of course you'll sometimes get underrated opponents, but not all of them are. If you're stuck at one rating for a while, it's likely your rating is pretty accurate.

I guess that's true, didn't really think about it like that but when I said judge, I meant if I made an opinion about said chess topic, I've had people get rude with me and say oh well your rating is low so what do you know etc, like that.....

Of course they are not accurate on this site in that goes for everyone. But to come on here and act as though you are the say all on chess openings with nothing to back it other than what masters said while at the same time claiming that ratings don't matter is dumb. They could compare OTB ratings and I have a strong suspicion that they vary drastically. To talk to someone who is clearly better than you(meaning exceptionalfork) like they need to take lessons from you is just silly. He's not being respectful at all which is why I commented. Having a respectful conversation with someone would be discussing why you like or dislike a particular opening. Not claiming that you know more than the other....besides the fact that the 2 players in question are laughable in difference. I would feel very strange telling someone I was better than them at openings with a 1300 rating difference, online or not. This is a matter of common sense 

You need to read the conversation. We were both givng an opinion about openings but exceptionalfork was being a stuck up snob and trying to use rating to act like he was better instead of making arguments about the topic. If you can use rating to negate someone's opinion and talk down to them as exceptionalfork has done then they should listen to someone higher rated than them who disagrees with them.

So it's one rule for me and one rule for you?

Exactly this is the point. Because they can't make an actual argument without trying to act like there's something that makes them better than you. They are just being stuck up.

He is still higher rated than you though so you can't disagree. Mr.2000 rated chess expert.

I like how I'm the snob here. Reread your first post to me and tell me if you think it's nice.

I've stated before that Magnus likes the London. Magnus is the highest rated player in the world. I listen to him.

Magnus likes every opening. He just plays loads of troll openings all the time and still wins because he's Magnus.

He wrote an opinion on the London. You responded with his whole perception of chess being deluded. You were being a snobby jerk well before anyone else was. It's OK that you're not that good. You should just accept it. I suck as well. You should realize that the whole conversation is on here and it is pretty easy to see who started being snobby

Lol I never said I'm a chess expert. I'm nothing special. But 2000 is better than 700.

Yeah the person who said "I'm higher rated than you so you're wrong". Open your eyes.

Then like I said. Don't listen to me then. Listen to someone who is better than you.

He only started making comments like that after you were being snarky. But as far as that statement goes, the laws of probability would state that hes probably accurate.

We don't have to use Magnus. GM Gata Kamsky, GM Baadur Jobava, WC Vladimir Kramnik, and many more use (or used to use) regularly.

Yeah I can say his opinion is deluded and back it up with arguments. It's not an insult. I backed up my opinion with explanations of the opening.

This guy just demeans people based on their rating because he can't make proper responses to the arguments. You chose the wrong side Hotdogbob. This guy turned this whole thing into a drama because he couldn't discuss the actual chess and can only say "I'm higher rated than you" and "b-b-but Magnus plays it".

You need to be fair on this one.

I discussed chess... tell me, do you know fluent English?

You insult the way I learn chess, talk about how I'm on copium... but you're right, you aren't demeaning at all.

Yeah because as soon as I challenged your opinion you lashed out and tried to use rating as a form of belittlement instead of responding to the points. That's copium af lol.

I never insulted the way you learn chess. You get so sensitive about it. It's totally fair to give my opinion on how someone can learn chess. I only disagreed with you.

Also if I believe the London is boring that's just my opinion and I can explain it fairly. It's not an insult at all.

I wasn't trying to belittle you. I did lash out, after you did.

It's hard to not lash out at someone if they act like a jerk. Maybe if you didn't write that one sentence about my chess learning being deluded, this argument wouldn't be so angry on both sides.