Before the start of the game, the knight,bishop,and the rook were functionally randomized. By that way the players will always face the new kind of chess because memorization will be useless. It seems original as the kids starting to play chess for the first time.
Maybe there is no speed chess in this format.
play chess960
Functionality randomized chess would give the distraction regarding the exchange pieces appearances. While chess960 is the variety of regular chess. The middle game and the end game of chess960 could be the same configuration with regular chess.
Mensa IQ and only a 700 rated player?
Ai - yi - yi.
I think it proves my point. There's a good chance that I have had more natural intelligence than the people who have beaten me and caused my score to get so low, yet they beat me with techniques memorized from playing and watching youtube. Is that not the exact point I was trying to make?
Mensa IQ and only a 700 rated player?
Ai - yi - yi.
I think it proves my point. There's a good chance that I have had more natural intelligence than the people who have beaten me and caused my score to get so low, yet they beat me with techniques memorized from playing and watching youtube. Is that not the exact point I was trying to make?
It doesn't.
Playing good chess is like having a conversation in a "foreign language". An intelligent person will make good questions and precise replies, but a truly intelligent person will start by learning enough words and expressions in the language he's trying to use.
I don't think you understand the nature of intelligence. The idea is that if both myself and someone else are presented with a puzzle, I'll probably solve it faster because I have the higher IQ. But if Forrest Gump has already seen that puzzle a couple of times, he'll solve it well before me by just going from memory - he won't even have to think, he'll just have to react.
I mean, if you're rated hundreds of points higher than me and we're playing and you do the French opening or something and I'm *supposed* to play A3 (for example) and I don't, you'll automatically capitalize and destroy me because of a blunder I made by not having some pre-determined moves memorized. Is that not how 99% of chess matches go?
I understand the French language, although not good enough to understand poetry written in French. That simple fact doesn't make me more nor less intelligent.
However, if I claim that because I'm intelligent then I should be capable of writing poetry in French, at least better than those Frenchmen that are less intelligent than me, the only thing I'll accomplish is to raise doubts about my intelligence.
I mean, if you're rated hundreds of points higher than me and we're playing and you do the French opening or something and I'm *supposed* to play A3 (for example) and I don't, you'll automatically capitalize and destroy me because of a blunder I made by not having some pre-determined moves memorized. Is that not how 99% of chess matches go?
No. Memorization is a significant component to chess strength, but nowhere near 99%.
What I'm getting from your comments is a dismissive regard about chess because you diagnose chess (mistakenly and egregiously at that) as being 99% memorization.
And the dismissiveness comes about because your intellectual ego is wounded from having a poor rating.
I mean, if you're rated hundreds of points higher than me and we're playing and you do the French opening or something and I'm *supposed* to play A3 (for example) and I don't, you'll automatically capitalize and destroy me because of a blunder I made by not having some pre-determined moves memorized. Is that not how 99% of chess matches go?
No, you can recover. Here's a true story:
At the World Youth Chess Championships, I messed up the move order of some 4...b5 line against the Reti and ended up an exchange AND a pawn down ...in 10 moves! I created an attack, and later ended up winning (!) the game 
Well, memory in chess is used to remember what each side is trying to accomplish in a given situation, and only then the movements. When forgetting or not knowing what each one is trying to do, slips like "wrong move order" show up to remind us that chess is not about memory.
Aye, memory helps although chess is not about memorization but analysis.
Otherwise, all we'd need to do is to take Carlsen out of the book et voilà, 99% weaker.
a mensa level IQ is what exactly?
Just a clue that its another troll/idiot.
... There's a good chance that I have had more natural intelligence than the people who have beaten me and caused my score to get so low, yet they beat me with techniques memorized from playing and watching youtube. Is that not the exact point I was trying to make?
What distinction (if any) are you making between memorizing and other forms of learning? (I think many would agree that chess success is a result of a combination of talent and the work that one puts into learning.)
... if both myself and someone else are presented with a puzzle, I'll probably solve it faster because I have the higher IQ. But if Forrest Gump has already seen that puzzle a couple of times, he'll solve it well before me by just going from memory - he won't even have to think, he'll just have to react.
You imagine that chess players don't have to think? You imagine that chess does not massively involve dealing with positions that one has never seen before?
"... there will come a time, whether on move two or move twenty, when your knowledge of theory runs out and you have to decide what to do on your own. ... sometimes you will leave theory first, sometimes your opponent. Nothing will stop this happening. It happens in every well-contested GM game at some point, usually a very significant point. This is a part of the game: an important part, something you have to get better at. ... to improve you have to challenge yourself; ..." - IM John Cox (2006)
I mean, if you're rated hundreds of points higher than me and we're playing and you do the French opening or something and I'm *supposed* to play A3 (for example) and I don't, you'll automatically capitalize and destroy me because of a blunder I made by not having some pre-determined moves memorized. Is that not how 99% of chess matches go?
"... I feel that the main reasons to buy an opening book are to give a good overview of the opening, and to explain general plans and ideas. ..." - GM John Nunn (2006)
If someone is rated hundreds of points higher than you, there is a good chance that that success comes from superior understanding that is the result of talent and work at learning.
"... the average player only needs to know a limited amount about the openings he plays. Providing he understands the main aims of the opening, a few typical plans and a handful of basic variations, that is enough. ..." - FM Steve Giddins (2008)
Chess, as practiced by humans, is logical analysis. We use what we see on the board and what's stored in our brains to develop premises and arguments.