Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

parham attack


  • 13 months ago · Quote · #101

    waffllemaster

    So he just wanted it to sound fancy because he happens to have a background in mathematics?  heh.

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #102

    waffllemaster

    The_Gavinator wrote:

    I think he was taking college level physics. Eboard, is there a specific formula, is it judgementally based, is there anywhere I can get a detailed description?

    I don't think physics would help much with coming up with a math based method of playing chess.  He'd have to be into pure mathematics for something that original.

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #103

    jetfighter13

    The_Gavinator wrote:

    Yes, I am interested in this too. I know he uses a version of vector analysis, which involves the queen and supporting pieces. Jetfighter, I recall you saying you're in algebra II, so I doubt you know vectors. They are essentialy a way of plotting line segments, you learn about them in trig. Apart from that, I don't know much about it.

    I took Physics last year, and other than the stuff about Newton, all I remember are vectors.

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #104

    waffllemaster

    The_Gavinator wrote:

    I'm not sure, it obviously worked for him however.

    Well at least we know it's not horrible.  But you can't argue for its merits this way because:

    One, you can't know how much he uses it in his games, only that he promotes it (unless you get very clear about matrix chess and go over his games).

    Two, assuming he only uses his system during his games, you can't know how good he would have been if he had used a traditional method.

    Third, there are many players better than him, so even if this maximized his personal ability, you can't assume it will work for you, or discount the traditional methods that have made the current top 10 who they are.

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #105

    edboardman1

    its not college level physics, just draw the pattern of a queen, then draw the diamond shape of the knight, if a 6yr old understands, its not that hard. no magic fotmula involved at all, were was the piece was at to were it is know

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #106

    TonyH

    he WAS a chess master over 20 years ago now he is lucky to hold 2000 due to a rating floor. Looking at his tournament history he drops games to class players on a consistant basis. To prove his theory it needs results in tournament play seems to have failed on that. I assume your a student of his and he does seem to have strong personality and appeals to those that like things differet for the sake of being different.

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #108

    edboardman1

    matrix isnt just Qh5, if it was then jean dean, emeory Tate wouldnt become masters.

  • 12 months ago · Quote · #110

    Peace_Mbele

    what are the moves for this strategy?

  • 12 months ago · Quote · #113

    AnthonyCG

    alexlaw wrote:

    it weakens his kingside but at least he can castle q side or something.

    I assumed that was the only point of the Parham.

  • 12 months ago · Quote · #114

    edboardman1

    it amazes me to see more people downgrade someone who one they havent played, but good note to see someone leave a comment about playing parham and losing to but learned from it, if it weakens the king side prove your theory 

  • 12 months ago · Quote · #116

    Rubidium

    This is sad. Someone needs to just quit chess.

  • 12 months ago · Quote · #117

    Rubidium

    I'd rather be rated 600 and be able to learn then be 2400 and unable to learn anything.

  • 12 months ago · Quote · #118

    Rubidium

    Amen. IM Pfren has been incredibly patient by giving variations and for even simply commenting. Gavinator constantly laughed at IM's lines, by giving rotten refutations, but IM Pfren even gave more variations. 

    But that's not even the point. Gavinator doesn't respect an IM more than he respects a 1200.

    Also, TonyH gave advice on deaf ears. This chess coach gave useful advice, but Gavinator and Whatupyodog didn't even reply. This is disgraceful. 

  • 12 months ago · Quote · #119

    Rubidium

    whatupyodog2 wrote:
    joeydvivre wrote:

    Why the heck can't this die?

    I think I had been playing chess for 10 years before I even met an IM and many years past that before one decided that I was worthy of their advice.  Now we have this IM giving out this advice and 1400 players responding with " it amazes me to see more people downgrade someone who one they havent played ".  If Kasparov came on here and told you the Parham was junk, would you believe him?  What level of authority does it take?  

    This internet age has sure made people disrespectful of their betters.  

    Im at a GM level.

    I'm a monkey's uncle.

  • 12 months ago · Quote · #120

    Rubidium

    Not tracking comments anymore.


Back to Top

Post your reply: