Is anything better for me than the Parham?

I talked about this with a GM.Asked him to parrticipate on the discussion but he remind me what Einstein said:

"2 things are infinite, the Universe and human stupidity.

For the first I'm not sure"

Some people's foolishness is beyond any salvation.From our intersting discussion I want to post on e thing that really impressed me , not for the OP but for the rest:

    (exact copy)

"Foolish untalented chessplayers wait to see a Grandmaster play a stupid move to repeat it.Clever talented people can understand that even grandmasters do foolish choices and can understand when.Talented players  would never choose to play a nonsense like Parham no matter how many like Nakamura employed it.So even if I convince them that it is a nonsense , nothing will happen.They will remain untalented no matter what opening they choose.So let it go"

   I asked him :"What if one of your students insisted on learning it.Would you teach him?":

He answered me(exact copy):

"If one of mys tudents insisted on learning it I would know that to this student ,there is nothing I can teach and nothing he can learn.If some people use as their inspiration players like Capablanca , Botvinnik , Petrosian , Karpov , Kasparov why bother for those that are inspired from Parham?"

I want to add to this:

Since you are so inspired by Parham attack(because Parham became a master with it) I will recomend you a full , "great masters repertoire":

As white:

1.a4 (Preston Ware become a master with this) or

1.h4(Marcel Desprez become a master with this)

As Black

against 1.e4 the excellent 1...a5(Preston Ware also used it to become a master)

against 1.d4 the also excellent 1...a5(the very good theoretician and player Preston Ware  played that too and become a master)

against anything else..........what the hell , 1...a5 again , if it is so good against 1.e4 and 1.d4 , how can it be bad against the others.

Keep studying  Parham , Preston Ware , Marcel Desprez and every "stupid"(for the others that don't know) move you see.It's a new way , called Matrix Chess(yeah , even Neo would play Parham Attack).Let the fools that don't understand it study and be influenced by players like Kasparov(what the hell does he know?does he ever played against Parham?), Karpov(who?)or Capablanca(are you kidding me? this isn't a player , it's an old movie). I will follow your improvement with great interest.You do mark a new era in chess theory.Years from now, Parham attack will be the Ruy Lopez of today ,and the famous Botvinnik school  will teach Parham's games only.

It's the same reason my 9 year old cousin won her little school chess tournament by exclusively playing the scholars mate.

If your opponents are awful, it pays to mindlessly make threats over and over because eventually they'll start hanging pieces.

You don't understand Matrix chess , that is why you say all that.The_Gavinator is  today's Nimzowitch.

alexllaw, you pussied out of playing me with the parham so you obviously know there is more to it than just beginners making mistakes. It is a very good aggresive opening.

Michael-g, Ware didn't exculsively play a4, I looked in the database he is almost always a d4 player. I don't even think either of those people are masters. My point is that Parham EXCLUSIVELY played this, and became a master, meaning it cannot be completely busted and useless as you like to say.

Anyways, this topic hasn't even been on track. Why don't you re-read OP? I realize you all think the Parham is bad, I've gotten 14 pages of that. If it is so bad give me a better alternative. I've heard tons of ruy (pretty much the only closed game you can reach after e4 e5), and scotch too. I like the scotch, but have a difficult time keeping things aggressive after 4...Nf6.

Parham meets A B C and D.

BTW, I know American schools are bad, but a, b, c, and d are FOUR things, not three.

It is a sound attack, if you can't complete the attack, at worst you have a piece or two less developed, it won't cost you the game like some gambits.

Thank you jetfighter.

What the hell Christiansoldier. After d6, white plays h3, and you don't kingside castle in the Parham. You queenside so you can move both rooks over and rape white because he has to mess up his kingside to stop the bishop from pinning his knight.

Ok I'm done talking to you. You have no clue what you are talking about, it's just not worth wasting my time on this.

My level is above you bro. You aren't even above 1300, and you've played hundreds of games on this site. I've played like 10, and I don't even try (because I watch seinfeld the whole time), and I'm still higher than you. I know you like to think book knowledge makes you good, it really doesn't, just worry about your own improvement mister IM.

That implies you think you're better than me. I am higher rated, and have only played a few games :P

ummm Qd1... why not just do something sensible like bb3?

I never said that. Quit misquoting an shoving words in my mouth, eric ... oh wait, that might get me banned. Crap I hate politics

my general rule is if "Your not threatening mate and there is a night on c6, play Ne2". So this is irrelevant, just stop posting boards.

watch your language

never said that either, I have never use that word on this site.

Please, everyone, let's leave the swearing off Chess.com.  It's fine to have a debate, but there is no need for horrible language.  If it continues, I'll have no choice but to lock or delete the thread.  :)

Thanks for your understanding, guys. 

please do the later of the two