Are you more strictly logical or intuitive in your thought processes?

To go back to the main point,

I read somewhere that chess experts actually calculate (logic) more than any other class of players. Above expert level memory played more of a role (intuition).

From this I would deduce that unless are expert strength or better, logic or calculation is going to result in the best game for you. (for people that cannot understand meaning behind words, I am not saying not to use positional understanding.)

1999 < expert < 2200

Or maybe, words can have more than one meaning.

Definiton of expert (X-SPERT)

an EX- is a has been

 a spert (spurt) - is a drip under pressure

No, they just force you to look into the context a bit more. When I say mass, do I mean the mass of something in grams or going to church? Look at the context.

So we took a few cool sounding words like expert, master, grandmaster (even super grandmaster!), and then ranked them amongst each other a little bit. It was a little arbitrary maybe, but I for one get the impression that all of those levels are considered very good in chess, just some more good than others. And I think that's the intended impression. And god forbid, maybe people just found it fun to do that?

But sure, look for problems when they're not there. I didn't really have trouble figuring out what made people come up with the chess terminology they did :)

use google to figure out what an expert in chess is. Above expert level means If you beat chess experts. That is not a contradiction or hard to understand in anyway.

A couple more points: First, Optimissed, I guess there must be some definition you're referring to where experts are said to be as skilled in their field as theoretically possible. I don't know about you, but I hear phrases all the time like "these dozen people, all experts in the field, disagree on such and such." In fact it's nearly impossible to actually master anything -- even Carlsen will always have things he can't do. Even if he learns to play a perfect classical game, we'll just say he can't play a perfect blitz game, and if he does that, then he can't play a perfect bullet game, and so on. Does this mean we should just never use distinctions like "expert" or "master?" Some could argue that, although then we would just keep saying stuff like "this guy is really good, this other guy is really really good, and this guy is really really really good" -- I'd rather just give them a few cool names :)

There are also some other ways to interpret our terminology for distinctions in skill. For example, maybe when we say a 2200 is a "master" we are thinking more like "master in the basics of the game," as opposed to the whole game -- he is a master in some sense but perhaps a grandmaster can show a master "how little he really knows," how the "master's mastery" is only with regard to a limited amount of features of the game, and when we see a better player come along, we realize there is more to mastery than what first appeared and so want to upgrade it by inserting a "grand."

Well, again, I kind of like that, and probably most people do, even if it's a little arbitrary. Perhaps you don't, which is fine, but the point is, people have other considerations for their terminology other than just their absolute literal meaning.

take a look at this, it has many well thought comments

 http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/how-do-you-move

I would imagine you are getting at something, but I don't know what -- clarify it if you want me to know, because I'm not going to spend a long time digging for your point deep in the sand.

If you want I can elucidate my rather simple thesis right now: Yes, we are putting fun words like "grand" in front of "master," pretending in some non-literal sense that there is a rank above mastery. And that doesn't make me upset :) Maybe it makes you upset, ok, so now we know what we think :)

DOH! I keep forgetting to close my eyes. Mucho gracias.

Yes, when people make comments like that it must be a sign of their great arguments, because not just any random person could make such simple comments like that!

You're not foolish for preferring what you prefer. Although I don't think everyone who doesn't prefer your way is foolish either.

I tend to be more logical in my thought processes while playing chess (and in general), perhaps because I have developed more strategy over time, though I have developed tactics as well (tactics seem to be more intuitive).

I'm not going to capitalize just for you, Optimissed, since you are the only chess player on the planet for which it is a problem :)

Yeah, assume that I don't because I can't. That sounds plausible.