parham attack

I think Qh5 is actually less shit, cuz it at least has a purpose. 3 a3 just seems like skipping a turn.

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.

Jetfigher, you're not one of the best players of all time. Fischer said this sucks, and obviously if you are rated 1300 you don't do too well with it either. I don't see you following in Fischer's footsteps...

How would you know? You've never played it :p

no, the parham lol

In math, yes. there is one way to do things, and that's the correct way. Chess is completely different, with infinite possibilities of strategy, positions, movements, etc...

But if I want to find 2+2, there is one way to do that. If I want to checkmate someone in 10 moves, there are nearly infinite ways to do that. That's the major difference, IMs and PHDs are both knowledgeable, but chess and math are different beasts. Btw, I'm tired of wrecking people's threads, see the new one I made.

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

Jetfighter, that's gonna be half the area of a sphere, so .5x(4/3)xr^3, or something like that. Taking Geometry?

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

Oh that was a fun class.

alexlaw- I agree. In the two lines above you posted, the main difference is that in the Parham white is up a pawn. Also, in the Parham line you posted, which is a common one, I usually follow up with d3, then try to pin the knight. It's defending pawns have both moved, so if black doesn't play h6, or move the queen, Nd5 wins a piece.

Are you serious?

Lol stop talking about stuff you don't know joey, you've never played the parham

Here's what you can do joey, tell me something that is better than the Parham. See my topic "Is anything better for me than the Parham?"

maybe you need glasses, but please go onto the other thread. This should remain stictly parham discussion, not going off topic.