I think the both of you are good enough for each other to be honest.
Anyone that is "a lot stronger than 2200" is at least an FM and probably an IM or (struggling not to laugh) GM. You'd be at the book-writing level. Yet 69AlphaMale109 makes bizarrely ignorant statements like strong players not needing to study theory or claiming he came up with 11. Ng5 in the Open independently of Karpov, some joke.
You gave yourself away with those comments pal, there is no going back from them, no takebacks, no becoming a believable high rated fictional character. Meanwhile you didn't offer the slightest real contribution or analysis like an actually good player would (hate to give you tips for future trolling attempts but I'm just establishing it for any onlookers here).
Maybe in Malawi Chess Federation perhaps they have yahoo-style chess ratings you may have over 2200, nowhere in the real world.
2200? Give me a break. I highly doubt anyone here ever got to 2200 or even 2000 - though maybe some of the actual helpful non-troll people like Nerwal did.
Where to put the rooks in the opening - we're talking 1400 level material here.
Daily chess doesn't count. "equivalent" doesn't count, neither do all these other excuses.