Most of them would probably get crushed now too.
Defences to the Parham Attack
Sort:
It is at best equal for white with best play. In fact, usually white is just worse.
The thing is that shepi sits there and screams the Parham sucks, then can't find any lines that hold up against it, and gets smoked by it himself. Definition of trolling.
Gavinator if you think he was loosing the entire time in the game with the h6 g5 plan you need to fire up Houdini and post what it tells you unedited and you will find that you are wrong and he was completly won but blundered into a mate.
I challenge the Parham fans to show us the best moves for both sides. If you can show that the Parham PWNS then good for you. If not, then stop polluting Chess.com with Parham nonsense.
Parham destroying a 2506:
http://www.chess.com/games/view.html?id=289187
Parham defeating a master in 5 moves:
http://www.chess.com/games/view.html?id=198942
It's basically undefeatable.
Scottrf wrote:
Parham destroying a 2506:
http://www.chess.com/games/view.html?id=289187
Parham defeating a master in 5 moves:
http://www.chess.com/games/view.html?id=198942
It's basically undefeatable.
Can you please stop using bad examples of chess for your points.
CHCL,
The only blunder was 1...e5?? allowing 2. Qh5!! which almost wins by force.
How does it win by force? I would like to see the "crushing" main line.
The Parham got me again.... I lost on time but its still a loss
joeydvivre wrote:
Gavinator - The problem here really is that your devotion to the Parham far exceeds your ability to evaluate a position. That means there have been tons of positions posted where you say "White is winning" when white is half a dozen moves from being checkmated. Ultimately this means that the whole enterprise is stupid. When two players get together to figure out chess moves and they go down lines, the goal is to come up with best play - not declare that one side is winning. Watch two GM's do it sometime - they will be like "here - that smacks that", "hmmm.. yep, okay let's back up five moves. Bf4 looks thoroughly refuted". You don't do that - just declaring that any crap put up must be good for the Parham. That means you don't even have a decent Parham repertoire yet.
What you would find for the Parham is what Nakamura said - "it's playable" but it doesn't give white advantage. If that works for you because you get enough idiots playing 2..g6 and 2..Ke7 so your win percentage is high, then keep playing it. In the meantime, everyone else knows the story of the Parham.
Sorry, I don't mean to seem to cut into your reproof of the Parham's ineptness, or Gavinator's ability to evalute it either. I just couldn't help but notice that by default,becuase you are right, it is also an accusation of his inability to play well enough to win with it, unless he is banking on opponent's mistakes and thus he is playing a bad form of hope chess. It's obvious, even "if" Houdini has said it wins for white with best play, he doesn't have it memorized, or we would all be in awe of his well known prowess.
The_Gavinator wrote:
The thing is that shepi sits there and screams the Parham sucks, then can't find any lines that hold up against it, and gets smoked by it himself. Definition of trolling.
Every line I found held up against it. The parham doesn't necesarily suck, it's just rather bad and has no promise of an advantage. I never was "smoked" by it, rather, I smoked it, twice! Ask any good player if black was winning after 23...f5 in my second game and they will say yes. Meanwhile in my first game with whatupyodog white was never winning, no matter what move he made.
CHCL wrote:
Scottrf wrote:
Parham destroying a 2506:
http://www.chess.com/games/view.html?id=289187
Parham defeating a master in 5 moves:
http://www.chess.com/games/view.html?id=198942
It's basically undefeatable.
Can you please stop using bad examples of chess for your points.
IM's are bad examples of chess?
shepi13 wrote:
The_Gavinator wrote:
The thing is that shepi sits there and screams the Parham sucks, then can't find any lines that hold up against it, and gets smoked by it himself. Definition of trolling.
Every line I found held up against it. The parham doesn't necesarily suck, it's just rather bad and has no promise of an advantage. I never was "smoked" by it, rather, I smoked it, twice! Ask any good player if black was winning after 23...f5 in my second game and they will say yes. Meanwhile in my first game with whatupyodog white was never winning, no matter what move he made.
If every line you found held up, why did you lose?
I will use one of your games to illustrate my point. IT IS possible to lose after getting a won position out of the opening. I lost because I BLUNDERED. Anyone with half a brain could see that black was winning or at least advantageous for every single move before 23...Rxb3. If you comment on my loss one more time I might quite possibly lose my temper worse than jetfighter did: it's not him with the problems, it's you.
You don't know how to talk things over like adults -
Example:
shepi - The parham is not a good opening because the queen is misplaced and tempos are lost, giving black at least an easy equality. Here are some lines.
Gavinator - If the parham sucks why do you lose?
You don't even listen to any of my input.
Granted, at the moment most of my input is more like:
shepi -
Gavinator, my loss was a blunder, one game doesn't prove anything, please listen to what I am saying now.
Gavinator -
No, you were pwned and worked over because your lines suck and fail to hold up.
If you continue this I might report you for a second time.
You also claim 900s suck, well that game was worse than anything any of the 900 players posted on here. Perhaps you are the one skewing the ratings.
Joeydvivre- The issue is white comes out better with best play, not that I make up the lines. I try to be fair to everyone, white just is better. And I don't get any idiots that play g6 or Ke7, I usually just walk all over them because this pwns.
johnmusacha- I agree, Bernard Parham is a great chess player, he gets no credit.
THIS IS JUST WRONG.