Studying openings is highly UNDERrated!

How many IMs have you played OTB ?  My guess is none given this comment . 

I like studying openings. It's like visiting foreign countries. Every opening has its own customs and patterns.

The French doesn't play like the Sicilian. The Queen's Gambit Declined doesn't play like the Scotch. The King's Gambit is what they play int the alternate universe where Spock has a beard.

Yet it's all chess and what you learn in the Nimzo might apply to the French or even the middlegame or endgame.

I believe what you study passionately sticks with you. if studying openings gets you engaged with chess, do it.

If not, play the Colle or the KIA or a QB fianchetto against everything. At the class level or even beyond, you probably can reach the promised land of the "playable middlegame" that way.

How many IMs have you played OTB ?  My guess is none given this comment.

Reb: Nope. I did beat a guy who beat Benko. Does that count?

At this point I'm pretty unimpressed with titled guys who pull rank on me.

You and pfren may play a mean game of chess over my head. But that doeesn't mean your pontifications about chess are necessarily any better than mine.

There are 2400 players with subnormal IQs. Need I say more?

Here's a homeless guy who plays chess in Harvard Square. He's taken on 2200, 2300, 2400 players in a four-round Swiss and gone 4-0.

http://www.clownshoesbeer.com/uncategorized/billy-the-homeless-chess-master/

Sage words to remember.

With the attitudes the two of you have you will never be anything but low level class players . It doesnt matter if your IQ is higher than some titled players ( which is not a given in any case ) the fact is that the titled player is still better than you at chess and knows/understands much more than you do about chess . Neither of you have even played a titled player in rated chess and yet you pretend to know what they do , and don't know . 

what?

Who are you calling a moron ? 

someone weird

Anyone that doesnt agree with him

You could be referring to me, pfren , or both of us thus the question . Afraid to give an honest answer perhaps ? 

Where does it list the 2200+ players he beat?

Reb: I like you, I enjoy reading you, but the train left a while back where I care about what you say because you have a title.

Playing chess at master levels and beyond is impressive, but it's a savant-like speciality -- not quite as severe as calculating square roots of large numbers in your head but in that realm -- and it doesn't generalize to higher levels of critical thinking.

If you want to dispute what I say, have at it. But this "I've played IMs and you haven't" is classic logcial fallacy territory.

underrated post

No , the fallacy is yours when you claim that any IM isnt a really strong player since you havent played any of them you have no real idea , first hand , of their strength . If you prefer to listen to class players over titled players where chess and chess improvement is concerned thats your business and I wish you well but to make such a false claim is just pure nonsense . 

How on earth is that a logical fallacy? 

[Further ranting deleted]

Where does it list the 2200+ players he beat?

It doesn't. That's what I heard from a Cambridge friend who knows the guy.

Here's a paper I've been mulling.

http://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4563&context=etd

The finding that chess players have above average IQ scores could support the hypothesis that playing competitive chess requires innately high levels of general mental capacities. However, this would not explain various counterexamples, namely chess masters who have IQ scores below 100. Reshevsky aside, the study by Doll and Mayr (1987) found that, as a group, strong German chess masters (ratings between 2,220 and 2,425) had a mean IQ score of 106.5 (significantly higher than 100, the population norm), but had a standard deviation of 7.5. Hence, their sample of master players must have included some individuals with lower than 100 IQ scores. The existence of such individuals shows that having a high IQ score is not a prerequisite for achieving high levels of skill.

C'mon moderators. It is time to ban this guy who calls everyone who makes positive contributions "mentally disabled", "moron", "idiot", "retarded", or some other term favored by the early-twentieth century Eugenicists who shared his racial views.

How are the two Bologan books compared to the  two Marin and two Lysyj books?

I'm referring to the books covering the Spanish as Black and 1. e4 e5 as Black.

Reb: You're going to have to quote me before you stick words in my mouth. Another logical fallacy.