studying Endgame first, or Openings.

 Time. The lower-rated players are always the first ones to finish their games in tournaments, with the highest-rated players, always finishing last. Lower-rated players simply don’t like to think, get excited about some tricky idea and don’t have the patience to verify if the move is sound or not.

  That is not a ‘reasonable effort’. On the contrary, it is quite lousy.

 Of course, all lower-rated players have a strong image about themselves as players, which is why their thinking is chaotic. Look at yourself: you do not seem capable of following a simple logic that explains how the games are being both lost and won, apart from you, in general.

  When you will reach the expert level, you will begin to experience the opposite: you will verify like 5 times before making up your mind, and that is also inefficient.

 But remember, if you don’t look at yourself critically, impartially and without any emotion, like it’s about somebody else, your future progress will be limited.  Your imagining that you’re trying your best—when thinking during the game is not orderly but clearly chaotic—is already an obstacle.

  Studying endgames first is rather useless, if you start with 1. f3 and fail to distinguish strong candidates from the ones that lose the game on the spot, because the process required to verify their soundness is simply missing.

troy7915 wrote: "... The point is not whether you are hoping for the best-case scenario or the second-best, or the third-best.. ..."

Well, who was it who brought up this "hoping for the best move-scenario" thing? (See post #204) If, a player accepts that a move may not be best, isn't it entirely up to the player to decide what amount of effort to undertake?

I only make what I consider to be a reasonable effort to consider the most dangerous reply by an opponent along with my reply to that reply.

Obviously not. Bring any game you ever played and you will see that you are imagining you are doing that, not actually doing it. Any game, your pick.

Do you have an estimate of the percentage of players who want to try to be the best of the best?

 The player doesn’t know whether it is the best-case scenario for him, or second or third-best, during the actual game. That is actually revealed after the game. During the game he is considering a pleasant reply from the opponent, especially if is enamored with some idea of his, in other words he is looking for a justification to play that move anyway. Even if he is considering strong replies by his opponent, he fails to carefully calculate until the position is quiet, looking for most threatening moves on each side.

 Look no further than your games: you will see the same failure in each every game you ever played.

  Is that relevant? Mediocrity defines the world in general, percentage-wise. It is only logical that if one wants to take up something, they would want to excel and be the best of the best, instead of setting limits from the start. Either at least try to excel or don’t do it, just watch tv and ‘enjoy’ life. Which is why I never understood why people have hobbies...

I am making what I consider to be a reasonable effort to look for the best move.

Ultimately, yes, that is true. 

My question was about whether or not a player is making what he or she considers to be a reasonable effort. My question was not about what troy7915 would consider to be a reasonable effort.

What makes you think that I am imagining that?

Your rating, dear. You are simply not aware of how you think.

What percentage of lower-rated players have you encountered? What method do you use to determine the strength of their self-image?

 It is not reasonable if you keep doing it: it is the only reason you are losing a game and the only reason you are winning one, when the opponent does the same thing. Oftentimes, you are both doing it, that is both blundering but none of you notices and the game continues more than it should.

troy7915 wrote: "Obviously not. Bring any game you ever played and you will see that you are imagining you are doing that, not actually doing it. Any game, your pick."

I already agree that I am not trying to be the best of the best, but that is not my concept of a reasonable effort. My statement was about "what I consider to be a reasonable effort".

If, a player accepts that a move may not be best, isn't it entirely up to the player to decide what amount of effort to undertake?

So your comments do not apply to the chess world in general?