I have five games he played in 2005. His record is 1-2-2. Most of the games are against players at around 2400 and the other was played against a 2600 (a loss only after 87 moves!). In the game he did win he really had to outplay his opponent.

ok then

I know this goes farther than most would like to think is the opening, I was just playing through an exchange sequens all the way out, that way it doesn't look like those computer generated analysese that leave off the last capture in a sequence

But in the last couple of years, as Naka has begun to think of himself as a world-class player, his openings seem to have gotten a lot tighter.We didn't see many Parham's in Wijk en Zee or the London Chess Classic.

2. Qh5 not good and nakamura even said so in a later interview I believe in New In Chess. he said it was an childhood experiment and it was time to play real openings to try and get an advantage. He did say it wasnt losing but black can easily equalize. So anyone that thinks the Qh5  is good go ahead play it please donate your rating points. stop posting , because I cannt think of a better word, moronic comments when people are asking serious questions. 

has anyone here read my blog post?

I think that Nakamura's idea of fun chess isn't really suited for the 2700 club. He is tightening his openings but I don't think he's going to climb until he conforms to the same thing everyone else is playing:

Berllin, Najdorf, Sveshnikov, Nizmo, and Catalan over and over and over and...

yeah because thats a speed game. Time pressure is a completely different game than real chess. In real chess its bad, in bullet anything is acceptable

1 min has no relevence in chess. Even a chump can get lucky sometimes and 1 min is 80% luck and mouse speed.Its like the worldchamp in MMA losing to a lucky punch or submission.  Everyone suddenly thinks they have some new great star then that new start gets demolished by everyone.  Play someone in 15 min close to your rating and see how it turns out,.. or better yet play someone stronger even better and see how they punish it. When I was working on a new line in the french I worked on it a bit with a GM and after we castled and the opening was over he said ok its equalish (i knew it wasnt because it was something i saw in a morozevich game but he did it once and noone played it again, the idea was interesting to me though)

1 min is like a water fight than chess,... its a lot of fun and the winner is still just as wet as the loser

http://www.chess.com/livechess/game.html?id=283308660

undefeated?

i saw another game you lost, was that your brother too?

why play a losing/equal opening when you get play for an advantage?

Ruy Lopez

who said Ruy Lopez gets a draw?

Lets stop arguing, I dont want to discuss openings with someone who doesnt understand them. No offense, but you need to learn opening prinicples

lol your funny

i ment chess in general not just the parham

parham actually had a run in with my chess coach, and foolishly played Qh5 in the sicilian (he went on to lose). Anyways I guess you are right amatuers dont need openings. I however intend to get past the amatuer level, so I'm throwing away the old toys of scholars mate and am adopting real openings. I hope you are successful at you level, which it seems you have been so far

I understand that it is not scholars mate, however I was referring to what I used to play when I was weak, the scholars mate.

Im still young, and I plan on becoming at least an IM. You dont know my mind.

Also, about the rules comment, I agree that chess is a situational game, however you have to know the rules before you can learn how to break them properly.

I dont want to say Im better than you, but my book knowledge exceeds my level, and I do feel my chess.com rating is slightly inaccurate, however thats a while nother debate

please do not use even an alteration of bad language and using christ's name. If you dont edit your post bankwell I will report you, we should keep this wonder family site a family site. We dont cuss at other people like children, we discusss logically like men. thank you

dude, that is like not cool Bankwell

anyway, I would like to challange The_Gavinator to a parham challange, I take black of course

Computers don't play chess in the sense that humans play chess.  They calculate lines and rank them with their evaluation algorithm.

Why would developers spend so much time and effort?  Either for prestige in a high rank on the program list, or possibly for money if they're going to sell their program.

So openings are ignored, the tests are run with opening books.  All evaluations are fine tuned for middlegame positions.  What they prefer without an opening book is meaningless, it's not a position it was designed to evaluate.