ChristianSoldier007 wrote:
The definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again without different results
I believe that's "expecting different results."
Defences to the Parham Attack
Sort:
Jun 9, 2012
0
#403
shepi13 wrote:
Title 4, although I have 3 title 3 norms and 1 title 2 norm. And I've only played chess for 6 months, not enough time to get many norms. It's supposed to take 5 years for 40% of people at a rating level to get that title.
I've never heard of these titles. Could you explain what they are or provide a link?
So everybody who has ever lost a game of chess is insane. They played a game of chess, lost, and are going to play another game expecting a different result...
Ok christiansoldier, you've lost a game of chess before. So everytime you play a game of chess, are you expecting to lose? Even if you were against a 500 rated player?
You have lost at chess. And you are playing again, expecting not to lose.
Jun 9, 2012
0
#407
Gavinator the point was he was talking to you. You try to convince us that the Parham is the best thing since sliced bread (if you have no clue what this is then you are really dumb) But we refuse to believe you because of we have something that also happens to be the title of a Pamphlet written By Thomas Paine (you as an american should burn forever if you don't know that one) Third we also are sick of your trolling trying to convince us of how the KG is Busted, which it isn't, trust me I know the difference between a Bust and a decent defence. The Parham isn't refuted. but it is unsound on Principle which is why we dissagree with it. now shut up or get out of our faces.
Here is the pathetic Garry Kasparov getting his butt kicked by a 2300+:
What a pathetic player.
Can you believe this guy was rated 2851 FIDE at his peak?
Did you know Garry Kasparov couldn't beat Woody Harrelson in chess? Do you know why? It's because Woody Harrelson used the Parham, and Kasparov couldn't beat him.
Kasparov could easily beat seriwan, that is, if seriwan hadn't played the Parham Attack.
It's because Kaspy did not really play against Woody, for marketing purposes.
And Seirawan (who's that Seriwan)? has beaten Tolya Karpov no less than six times (rapid and blitz games included), and Karpov has beaten Kasparov more than any other player in this world.
Sungolian wrote:
shepi13 wrote:
Sungolian wrote:
jetfighter13 wrote:
no only the one's with power/Charisma do. The rest of them end up in the loonyvilles where inevetably someone will give them a lombotamy and save the rest of the worlds sanity.
since Gavinator and whatup have niether as do most parham advocates. except Bernard Parham (who though he looks like Gadaffi[which is NOT a good thing], does not spoon feed his hippy patzer BS to the rest of the world no matter how good he is. because he is only a rank amature with a performance rating in the 1800's hardly Master quality chess.) I say commit them to the insane asylum or get out of the rest of our faces.
Bernard Parham plays like a 1900 now because he's old and tired. Most strong players lose rating points when they turn old because they have trouble concentrating and such. When Parham was in his prime like 15 years ago, he played at 2200+ level which is why he was awarded the life master title. He used the Parham Attack successfully in big tournaments like the U.S. Open.
He wasn't awarded the life master title, was he? As far as I can tell the highest title Parham achieved was National master.
He' a life master. The USCF changed their policy so that anyone who ever obtained an official non-provisional published rating of >2200 to keep the title of master for life regardless of future performances. So by that definition Parham is always a master.
I do realize he's not in top form anymore, but it doesn't detract from his past accomplishments when he performed for many years at >2200 during his prime.
He is a national master and will be for life. "Life master" is a completely different title altogether. The original life master title was awarded for maintaining 2200 for 300 games, and the new life master title is norms based. Parham hasn't been awarded either, although he will never lose the title of national master. Perhaps you should learn this distinction.
browni3141 wrote:
shepi13 wrote:
Title 4, although I have 3 title 3 norms and 1 title 2 norm. And I've only played chess for 6 months, not enough time to get many norms. It's supposed to take 5 years for 40% of people at a rating level to get that title.
I've never heard of these titles. Could you explain what they are or provide a link?
They aren't that important, no one really worries about them until you reach master level, but gavinator did ask.
Title 4 - 1200 norms based title - 5 norms at 1200 level.
Title 3 - 1400 " " " " " " " " "
Title 2 - 1600
Title 1 - 1800
CM - 2000
Not sure which titles come after that.
If you search for it there is an excel spreadsheet that can calculate if you achieved a norm or not and for which category, and USCF posts norms on their website.
They are also harder to earn then the rating group they actually are for, for example in order to win my title 2 (1600) norm I had to go 3/7 at the U1900 section of the chicago open.
Sungolian wrote:
alexlaw wrote:
1600 norm?
lmao i dont understand the point of having any norms for
prize fund qualifcations to prevent sandbaggers
Sungolian wrote:
alexlaw wrote:
1600 norm?
lmao i dont understand the point of having any norms for
Actually it's quite new, but no one really cares about the titles. I was just answering my fellow members posts.
The norms were created and pushed by goichberg basically to help him with his tournaments that have massive class prices $10k Plus. The point is to prevent players from winning an event then dropping points to maintain a low rating. I like the idea but they need to drop the rating floors. LM already screw up ratings at the expert level if they are flat liners and are really playing at the 1800 level. Players get inflated ratings by beating them or drawing them. and the pairings are screwy for some events
no only the one's with power/Charisma do. The rest of them end up in the loonyvilles where inevetably someone will give them a lombotamy and save the rest of the worlds sanity.
since Gavinator and whatup have niether as do most parham advocates. except Bernard Parham (who though he looks like Gadaffi[which is NOT a good thing], does not spoon feed his hippy patzer BS to the rest of the world no matter how good he is. because he is only a rank amature with a performance rating in the 1800's hardly Master quality chess.) I say commit them to the insane asylum or get out of the rest of our faces.
Bernard Parham plays like a 1900 now because he's old and tired. Most strong players lose rating points when they turn old because they have trouble concentrating and such. When Parham was in his prime like 15 years ago, he played at 2200+ level which is why he was awarded the life master title. He used the Parham Attack successfully in big tournaments like the U.S. Open.
2200??? That is nothing... Even at that level, openings are not a huge factor... It needs to be tested at the highest level.
Really? What's your USCF Rating?
And Irontiger, the point is that all of these people are saying that the Parham is useless and gives black obvious advantage, but Bernard Parham played 2.Qh5 against ANYTHING that didn't hang his queen, and reached all the way to the title of chess master.