He never said force now did he?
Defences to the Parham Attack
Sort:
The_Gavinator wrote:
jetfighter13 wrote:
maybe they are in looneyville Gavinator. the problem with this logic is that in Matrix chess Rooks are also worth two and this is completely false. the reason is it takes two bishop's assisted to mate where as it takes only one rook assisted to mate.
It does?
no the situation that I refered to was below
You never mentioned the word force, and there is no mate there period. Stop trolling.
Ok you are the one trolling because you don't know general chess termonology. when I say a Bishop and King cannot mate without extra help I mean against a lone king where as a rook can do that with a king. its simple endgame termonology that you don't know because you never get there. either because you loose. win because of your elaborate trap. or just plain don't care to play one.
I wish I had admin control. I'd retitle this thread, "Gavinator is a troll" making sure that is by Gavinator, giving his apology along with a lengthy, why the Parham is inept. Then I'd lock it.
I don't think the value of pieces has much to do with how easy it is to mate the king with them.
well calling a rook equal to a bishop is looney. therefore Gavinator Parham and anyone who agree's with them are loons. Dive back underwater why doncha
It's a different thought process jetfighter, be more open minded. Mr. Parham has gotten a lot farther playing matrix chess then you have playing regular chess. At least he probably knows that it is possible to mate with just 1 bishop and a king lol...
no no Two knights and a king can force a mate if the other side has a pawn behind a certain point. eventually it is captured and two knights and the king mate. Bishop and knight can mate with assistence from a king.
a single rook can mate with help from the king without anyother material on the board.
Queen can do the same but since it moves like a rook and bishop it is worth about the same as them combined.
and a lone Bishop and King cannot mate against a lone King.
jetfighter13 wrote:
I mean against a lone king
Two knights can't force mate.
there is a position in which it is possible but the other side has to have a pawn. its wierd but just use any endgame tablebase and give a position with a pawn on its starting square for the loosing side and then check the result. now remove the pawn. what you get is the only time the enemy having more material is better than the enemy having less.
also when talking in an endgame context when talking about mate, Force is always implied.
Sungolian wrote:
joeydvivre wrote:
1) You guys spend way too much time obfuscating discussions and trying to somehow "win" a discussion by pointing out semantic flaws or creating them and then defending them. Maybe if you cooperated on creating a dialogue or a dialectic you would actually learn something. Honestly, by looking at all these discussions of the Parham, I have learned a few things but there is no evidence in these threads that many other people have. In particular, there are almost no consensus lines you have all worked out (which means you have mostly wasted your time).
2) Arguning about who is the better chess player, etc. is just a backwards kind of ad hominem argument that doesn't get you anywhere. If someone is a lousy chess player, they will probably suggest lousy lines and those should be easy to correct if you have some decent basis for dialogue.
3) Arguing about piece value based on how easy it is to mate with them is silly. Pieces have relative values depending on the position and a board devoid of pieces except one or two is a degenerate case that probably has little bearing on the valuation of the piece in other settings. Chess literature is absolutely full of discussions about relative merits of N vs B vs R in any number of settings and the discussion is never about "well in a complete liquidation, 2 B's is better than 2 N's so a B is better than an N". That's just dumb.
4) This discussion of K + 2 N's vs K + P is silly. Go to Google and look up Troitzky line if you care. It is very difficult and not winnable by many GM's (GM Lilienthal failed 3 times in his career I think). That means it is very likely a draw in amateur chess.
This is precisey what I was telling jetfighter with my post. 2 knights can't mate a lone king, but two bishops or 1 knight and 1 bishop can. However, they are rougly equal in value in the opening and middlegame. Therefore my point is that his "explanation" for why the rook is a better piece is irrelevant. I do agree the rook is a better piece, but not for the reason that he gives.
The value of a piece depends how many squares it can control and (in the middlegame) what squares they control.
So have we come to a decision on lines? From what I understand, the Parham pwns.
joeydvivre wrote:
"The value of a piece depends how many squares it can control and (in the middlegame) what squares they control."
and how valuable the squares are that it controls, how mobile it is, how safe from attack it is, how much it contributes to defense, how static the pawn structure is, how likely the game is going to an ending, how it cooperates with other pieces, etc, etc...
That is what I meant. I was rushing because I was having company over.
No I just haven't seen any lines lately, I was just wondering if you all finally realized that the Parham pwns.
You guys have thoroughly got me interested in the Parham. Not that I play it . . . but I was going some reasearch on line and found out that Bernard Parham was at one time the Indiana Chess Champion.
Not that this amounts to much at the Candidate's or Interzonal level...but wow... that still is pretty impressive. That means he was the best chess player out of about 6.5 million people.
So the guy obviously knows what he's doing . . . perhaps we should give his contributions to chess a bit more respect than we have been on this site.
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.
Gav -- yeah, that's what I was thinking. Like 99.9% of people on this site ever was a U.S. State chess champion . . . Hell, I played chess in the Miami-Dade county jail and I still wasn't the best player on my cell block, let alone the entire jail complex I'm sure.
And this dude was a state champ. What gives with the lack of respect ya know?
You fail to understand the game of chess is not a cooperative affair. The mate you showed earlier cannot be forced. Therefore, jetfighters statement that two bishops in cooperation with a king are needed to force mate is completely valid.