We all know he played this as a precocious kid, he's certainly dropped it since.  But even since then his opening choice has often said "I can get away with this because I think I can outplay you"  I recall some dutch games he lost spectacularly against the super-strong Kramnik

He's also said (about 2 years ago) that he doesn't like to specialize in an opening, he just wants to get to the point where he and his opponent are on their own, because, in his own words, he feels like he can play better chess than his opponent once the theory is gone.

Well, he's a pretty cocky player :) I wonder who he played it against.  We all know how what's-his-name played 1...a6 against the then world champ Karpov (at a time, IIRC, that karpov had an unbeaten streak going).  But that doesn't mean 1...a6 is theoretically best.

And like I said before, I don't think it's as bad as some other openings people try to play.  Heck I frequent some gambit lines all the time online that I know are bad... because they're trapy and I count on my opponent screwing up.

But if I really wanted to win, and was against a peer/someone better than me, I don't think I'd be doing myself any favors by playing a slightly inferior move so early.  At my level the game won't be decided in the opening by any means, but I'd try to make the most of my moves.  I think the idea of tempo is valid, and Qh5 seems to waste a tempo and count on poor defensive play by my opponent.

Because you have to move the queen twice, that's why I mention tempo. 

Naka was right that it has potential, in that it's not a losing move.  I very much doubt he meant potential as a strong opening like other mainline and mainstream openings are.

And I don't care who played it by the way.  Moves can be judged objectively for their own merits for what they do on the board.  GMs make moves fashionable, but they don't make them any stronger than what they are.

a6 isn't that bad really, black goes right into a queenside expansion and fianchettos there.  It can also transpose fairly easily into "real" openings too if white isn't careful.

No, I don't think a6 is very good.  Like you said something to play to get attention or make your opponent furious hehe :)  But just like Qh5 it certainly isn't losing.

There some hippo game where the annotations say this.  I wonder if the game is famous, or if I just came across it one day (maybe someone knows it).  But supposedly the IM facing it became mad in the late middlegame that his position wasn't winning against this opening, so he sacrifices a few pieces for dubious compensation and ended up losing.

That Naka played the move doesn't make it better or worse than what it is.  That a GM can draw a GM with a less than best opening move doesn't validate the move either.

Or in other words, just because it's not losing, doesn't make it good.  There are GMs like Gashimov who took up playing the Benoni against top players, which isn't popular at high levels (don't know if he still does).  Sometimes GMs pick up dubious (to them) openings.   But his peers don't seem to agree, as I'm not aware of any other top player willing to use it like that.

If Naka played it more than a few times, maybe we could talk, but it seems he doesn't believe in it either.  And certainly no other top players use Qh5.  Like I said before, there's no reason to give up a tempo.  g6 isn't bad for black's position, but moving the queen twice is.

Yes, opening moves can't be judged from the result either.  They're strong or weak by their own merit.

The KG is much better than this crap, and saying it hangs a pawn does nothing to shoot it down, KASPAROV Lost convincingly enough to put the KG in a level of its own, it was the most popular opening from arround 1600 to the mid 1800's and there is no refutation, FISCHER NEVER BELIEVED THIS, he just chose to write the article to scare people off, and plus some of the moves in his analysis have been shown to be worse for white than most rational people would play. SPASSKY BEAT FISCHER with it.

If that constitutes crap, and makes it completely unsound, then what the hell makes you think that a GM who would loose to KASPAROV (NAKA) and who always looses to CARLSEN (who has played the KG before) strengthens the Parham, when I can follow in the footsteps of veritable legends, which NAKA will NEVER become.  also The player who beat KASPY was SHORT.

anyway with that I rest my argument in favor of the KG

Well that's the point isn't it?  Qh5 then Qf3 a move or two later... technically speaking this is the definition of skipping a turn... that's what losing a tempo is.

Gavinator do I need Batgirl to show you all of the Games FISCHER played it, he only said it sucked cause he lost to a soviet player who played it against him. He also was a loon and plus having an undefeated record with it as white is better than your example NAKA who has a shit record with it

Did you know that 90% percent of people believe what they read? I know its true, because I read it in a book somewhere.

isn't 2+2 fish

I know its actualy 4 but I couldn't resist the chance to do that

Oh and the answer for serious people is right under that answer.

By the way how do you figure out the volume of a hemisphere

V=4/3 pir squared all over 2

answer is again above for serious folks

opos see I get messed up a bit I wrote squared its cubed, actually algebra II

Ok try this variation for white

How exactly does d5 refute the bishops gambit?

d5 does not refute the gambit, it just gives white a lot more for the pawn he sacced, take with the bishop and get the game over with

No Trust me the asians kill thier students with Homework and extra curriculars, its like they are trying to get the Chess Grandmaster Nuclear Physisist, Well read Futbol Letterman all in one, who happens to be a concert piannist