A recurring blunder I see from people trying the Scholar's Mate

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #21


    Brennon_Huff wrote:

    Yeah I dont think the parham works very well against c5.

    Actually I thought it worked even better somehow (?)  Maybe I was wrong.  I know Parham himself played it against c5 and I thought he had a number of tricky lines.

    It may be worth noting, if you didn't know already, that it's part of Parham's larger system he calls matrix chess.  Some interesting ideas even if I don't agree with them completely.  Anyway it's under this philosophy of chess that the Qh5 stuff is promoted... obviously classical/contemporary thought treats the early Qh5 with much disdain.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #22


    Oops, I edited my post and you responded so quickly.

    Any luck with his matrix idea of chess?  Parham was a 2300 master IIRC.  If you like the early Qh5 vs 1.e4 you may look at some Parham games to see how he handled it against the Sicilian and other openings.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #23


    This is one of the biggest blindspots of beginners. They are often unable to see discoveries from undeveloped pieces. I think, they emotionally believe since it hasn't moved yet, it cannot be a threat.

Back to Top

Post your reply: