I didn't say it was refuted I said you were.
Defences to the Parham Attack
Sort:
The_Gavinator wrote:
That's not my point, no human plays at houdini's level, my point is that others were saying that the Parham always gives a draw with engine play, and they are trolls.
And CS, you keep talking about these lines, but I never see them. Funny how that works, isn't it? Please show me these good lines that I am certainly "ignoring".
If the overall disadvantage is three pawns for a human to overcome, why waste two tempos and get yourself into a hole when there are far more viable options available? It makes no sense. Napoleon wasn't brilliant, no one plays his opening, but it is so similar to your beloved, why can't you see that, do you need a hair cut?
Jun 12, 2012
0
#524
Yoweri_the_Reaper wrote:
Jetfighter, you insult me. I am not a pirate. I am a fighter for my land.
Sorry Didn't think it could be interprited that way I also didn't mean Navy snipers. I was talking about the youtube vids of The USMC Snipers in Afghanistan
I like Nf6, its a favorite move of mine to retort that Parham stupidity. It developes, attacks the queen and the pawn. He can't even make his bishop move next like he wants, because he already has to move his queen. In fact he might as well go ahead and move his queen back to his back rank. Thats two free tempos for me...thanks
ChristianSoldier007 wrote:
hm thanks hezleth I never did refine that line. Here is another
revised
Looks like black is in command in that game? It has central control...
In the mainline, white is up a pawn.
The_Gavinator wrote:
In the mainline, white is up a pawn.
Wanna play a game Gavinator? I'll give you white. I will check your moves with an engine. Don't cheat me. It will be unrated too.
That's called troling, even though CS can't last 11 moves without giving material, this guy right here tries to distract us from that with a pointless game challenge...
The_Gavinator wrote:
That's called troling, even though CS can't last 11 moves without giving material, this guy right here tries to distract us from that with a pointless game challenge...
Its only pointless, if you don't accept. If you do, then we will begin to see your Parham in the real world. Lets do this...
You are down a pawn...
http://www.chess.com/home/view_message.html?id=412982052
This is the decline Gavinator sent me...see for yourselves. He doesn't want to prove anything,except that he wants to run his "trap"...
Houdini likes giving up pawns?
CS, your "Revised" Board, white is up a pawn...
AcivilizedGentleman wrote:
ChristianSoldier007 wrote:
here it is gavinator one more time in a diagram
that was a horrible line. I already told you, you and jetfighter constantly posting horrible lines is what made these guys go on for so long. Why do you keep going? Are you in cahoots with them?
white could simply play a3 after d6 in your nc3 nb4 line and he'd be fine. bg4 qg3 whatever.
Just so you know gavinator the line you gave is still equal. If anyone can claim an advantage, it would be black. Congratulations on having a great opening, you are the only chessplayer I know who loves to allow black instant equality, even in "horrible lines." It really takes 0 skill to play against this sad opening.
I didn't give a line, that was CS's crappy line, and shepi, why did you lose to it then?
White is up a pawn, and it is his turn to move. Also, in the Qe3 line you posted, white is also up a pawn. Please show me why white is losing by your standards then?
I didn't lose in the opening. You just keep repeating the same lousy facts that support your opening while ignoring those of us who know any chess theory at all.
And I meant the move you gave against CS's line, with a3.
You clearly don't understand that it is possible to lose from equal, advantageous, and even winning positions. I am amazed at the constant stupidity of those who are playing a game that takes this much intuition and knowledge.
I didn't even give a3, that was the Russian, and you lost because you opened up your kingside in the opening, it was completely becuase you can't stop the Parham Attack.
How is the Parham refuted?