11602 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
I know my lines, I just don't go flaunting them because as soon as I get past 6 moves I am playing on my own based on thematic knowledge, aka trade dark square bishop, exchange sac on the c file, get pawn to e5 or f5, rip open h file,
bonus points if they can guess the opening based on the themes here, then post it
Ok, I still don't see the need for you to keep calling me an amateur. Bernard played Qh5 against everything, and he was a chess master. Just because you don't like the Parham attack doesn't mean you have the right to look down on those who play it.
Seems some confuse the existence of a model with the superiority of a model. Just because the matrix system is a way to play, doesn't say anything about whether or not it's a good or better way to play.
If you want to reduce chess to a few algorithms, chess programs have been doing that for decades. With all the time and money people like Kauffman have put into the development I don't think it's a coincidence that the matrix stuff hasn't been used. Maybe you'd like to test that for us, and show how the matrix system gives better evaluations / moves than the standard way of playing...
Because also true is different doesn't mean better either. The burden of proof is on the fringe ideas not the other way around. The standard way of playing has been tested by people for nearly a century. Alternatively, maybe you can point to some strong players today using the matrix system. Although considerably weaker than the best players, anyone around 2400-2500 would be good.
Just because a person plays an idea doesn't make the idea good. The objective value of a move is entirely unrelated to who is playing it. I'm sure you and I both have played moves GMs would play (even if we didn't know it ;) The strength has to do with the position, not our fingers.
Notice Kasparov could have opened exclusively with 1.a3 and still have kept a high GM rating. Only a silly fan-boy would take that to mean 1.a3 is a good opening just because their hero plays it.
I am better than all of you except IM pfren but he is cool. I play the parham and i am definately not an amateur, amateurs may play it a lot but they dont know how to capitalize on their opponents awkward positioning which is why it is mistaken as an amateur opening, and The_Gavinator is right, the ruy lopez is very passive.
Yes but Kasparov is one of the greatest players of all time, and devotes his live to chess. Bernard Parham is a physics professor I belive, and plays chess as a pastime. My point is that the matrix chess system isn't perfect, but it obviously isn't broken if he could be a chess master.
I agree, from what I've read about it, it dosen't seem stupid or bad... I don't know if it's the best way to play :) but it still makes sense.
Yes, it's highly mathematical I belive, I'd like to learn more about it, however my point anyhow is that bernard parham became a master by playing the parham attack every game against 1...e5, so it can't be refuted...
just like the King's Gambit can't be refuted
yes it can it sucks
But the king's gambit throws away a pawn, opens up your kingside, and is much easier to stop.
it still isn't refuted, even BOBBY FISCHER DID NOT BELIEVE IT WAS REFUTED EVEN AFTER, I REPEAT-AFTER-, HE PUBLISHED HIS FAMOUS "BUST TO THE KING'S GAMBIT" HE LATER PLAYED IT IN MANY GAMES AND WON, WON, WITH IT, AGAINST LARRY EVANS MOST NOTABLY.
that should prove my point
I didn't call it refuted, I called it weak, as did fischer.
Fischer won because he is good, he just played that opening to end it quickly.
I will pwn all of you with the parham so i dont want to hear this crap anymore about how it is bad. Chess principles are dumb anyway. I never studied one opening and i was 3rd in the nation in 2nd grade, was 5th grade state champion (A while ago) and i pwn all of you. Until you are around 1900-2000 you dont need to study openings, you need to learn to play well.
I pwn, jetfigher please dont pull that crap anymore.
Ah yes, the "shut up I'm better than you" defence. I thought they refuted that...
I'm not sure whether to laugh or shake my head at this thread
I think it's better than the "I don't like the parham so it must be bad" Defence
Yes but my favorite, "lets not get into a flame war and ruin a good thread" variation never gets played, oh well
by the way how is the Kings Gambit unsound?
well since you just declined your own variation, you hang the f pawn and ruin your kingside.
Kings Gambit: Theory
by jetfighter13 a few minutes ago
My System, which edition to purchase?
by strngdrvnthng a few minutes ago
11/28/2014 - Inch By Inch
by luqmaan 3 minutes ago
A Bust In "How to Play Chess Endings"
by EricFleet 3 minutes ago
Aronian: Women Cannot Play Chess
by shell_knight 5 minutes ago
please help me slay the najdorf scicilian
by achintyavatsraj0680 9 minutes ago
by DrSpudnik 10 minutes ago
Italian Game 4.0-0 d6!?
by chessmicky 13 minutes ago
by DrSpudnik 18 minutes ago
Request for cancelling my premium membership
by alexia3 31 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2014 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!