Is anything better for me than the Parham?


That is the point. If you would play stronger openings you would easily break the 2000 barrier. It is holding you back.

 Also why don't Grandmasters play the Parham? Obviously because it is bad.


wow, great defense bro on moves 7 and 8, except one small problem on move 9, Bxf6 pwns the fuck out of black.


I am sorry if people are taking my suggestions the wrong way. I am not trying to troll though.


NO, i am taking them seriously, its this jetfighter dumbass im pissed at.


yeah, That is why I don't normally do analysis this late at knight


I've already explained this, the Parham is incredibly open, a slight error can cause fireworks to explode, gm's tend to avoid that. At our lower level, mistakes are common, and Parham players can explode. I have never played a master, so my slight tactical errors aren't being exploited, and I can use my open attacking game to win games. I don't see why that's bad?

Jetfighter, I dont' see what you did. You added like two comments. And have you considered I did so well because of the Parham? If I was in the ruy lopez, I wouldn't be able to exploit my opponent like that, which is why the Parham pwns,


no you don't get that your opponent screwed his game over fairly quickly, in the Ruy, or the Italian game, which you don't want to make either of those agressive because you seem to get with out giving, you will not make it very far in the real world that way, to get a reward you need to take risks; take the stock market, you are investing in Government bonds, which are very low risk, because against your opposition you gain a decent proportion of wins, I play the riskier investments with a higher payout if I am succesful in controling the game and not just waiting for my opponent to F up like the parham hopes to, its Government bonds vs. Stock in Gibson Guitars.


In the kings gambit, which I know you think is the best thing ever, you only win if your opponent f's up. Otherwise you lose. The thing with the Parham is, you didn't throw away that pawn and open up your kingside, so if your opponent plays solid defence, you end up even.  Judging by your analysis above, I don't think you need to tell me what's bad about the Parham, it just shows I'd crush you too. If my opponent did your alternate line above, I'd go up a piece and a rook, and have probably had him resign right there.


Jetfighter, you are dumb, the all reward no risk thing you cant think of is counting cards, which you could compare to the parham.


 I know how to count cards, but there is a risk to that, getting caught....

also the KG is no where near lost, it is just a different way to play, Spassky killed Fischer with it, with the Variation that Fischer later claimed was busted, but has been found to give white a slight edge, but I don't play the King's Knight's Gambit because it is no where near as fun as the Bishop's Gambit. also there is no such thing as all reward, no risk, or else we would all be friggin millionairs, CEO's, and President's, we would all get into heaven, and there would be no problems in the world. now would that be a good world, I think not, it is the recipe for disaster, so even then there is a risk.


Of course, there's a risk I can walk outside and get hit by an asteroid, there's a risk I can be walking down the sidewalk and get bitten by a venomous snake, but the risk is minimal. There are levels of risk, which don't always equate to reward. Working on a construction site is high risk, with all the dangers of accidents, but not too good of a reward. Being a software engineer is low risk, (carpal tunnel?), and high reward. The KG is high risk, decent reward. The Parham is low risk, high reward (as shown above).


Edited for language; let's keep it clean, gang.  :)


I've had better results with the parham than with any other opening. It is aggressive, and allows me to exploit opponents mistakes, as in the sample game. In a closed ruy lopez, there's no way I could do that.


The only reason why you are able to use the parham to good effect against beginners is because they neglect basic opening principles. You don't need to know any theory, all you need to do is make a few logical moves. Most of my rapid games in the ruy lopez last around 20 moves (passive?). Beginners games are filled with tactical oversights regardless of opening.


I talked about this with a GM.Asked him to parrticipate on the discussion but he remind me what Einstein said:

"2 things are infinite, the Universe and human stupidity.

For the first I'm not sure"

Some people's foolishness is beyond any salvation.From our intersting discussion I want to post on e thing that really impressed me , not for the OP but for the rest:

    (exact copy)

"Foolish untalented chessplayers wait to see a Grandmaster play a stupid move to repeat it.Clever talented people can understand that even grandmasters do foolish choices and can understand when.Talented players  would never choose to play a nonsense like Parham no matter how many like Nakamura employed it.So even if I convince them that it is a nonsense , nothing will happen.They will remain untalented no matter what opening they choose.So let it go"

   I asked him :"What if one of your students insisted on learning it.Would you teach him?":

He answered me(exact copy):

"If one of mys tudents insisted on learning it I would know that to this student ,there is nothing I can teach and nothing he can learn.If some people use as their inspiration players like Capablanca , Botvinnik , Petrosian , Karpov , Kasparov why bother for those that are inspired from Parham?"

I want to add to this:

Since you are so inspired by Parham attack(because Parham became a master with it) I will recomend you a full , "great masters repertoire":

As white:

1.a4 (Preston Ware become a master with this) or

1.h4(Marcel Desprez become a master with this)

As Black

against 1.e4 the excellent 1...a5(Preston Ware also used it to become a master)

against 1.d4 the also excellent 1...a5(the very good theoretician and player Preston Ware  played that too and become a master)

against anything else..........what the hell , 1...a5 again , if it is so good against 1.e4 and 1.d4 , how can it be bad against the others.

Keep studying  Parham , Preston Ware , Marcel Desprez and every "stupid"(for the others that don't know) move you see.It's a new way , called Matrix Chess(yeah , even Neo would play Parham Attack).Let the fools that don't understand it study and be influenced by players like Kasparov(what the hell does he know?does he ever played against Parham?), Karpov(who?)or Capablanca(are you kidding me? this isn't a player , it's an old movie). I will follow your improvement with great interest.You do mark a new era in chess theory.Years from now, Parham attack will be the Ruy Lopez of today ,and the famous Botvinnik school  will teach Parham's games only.


It's the same reason my 9 year old cousin won her little school chess tournament by exclusively playing the scholars mate.

If your opponents are awful, it pays to mindlessly make threats over and over because eventually they'll start hanging pieces.


You don't understand Matrix chess , that is why you say all that.The_Gavinator is  today's Nimzowitch.


alexllaw, you pussied out of playing me with the parham so you obviously know there is more to it than just beginners making mistakes. It is a very good aggresive opening.


Michael-g, Ware didn't exculsively play a4, I looked in the database he is almost always a d4 player. I don't even think either of those people are masters. My point is that Parham EXCLUSIVELY played this, and became a master, meaning it cannot be completely busted and useless as you like to say.

Anyways, this topic hasn't even been on track. Why don't you re-read OP? I realize you all think the Parham is bad, I've gotten 14 pages of that. If it is so bad give me a better alternative. I've heard tons of ruy (pretty much the only closed game you can reach after e4 e5), and scotch too. I like the scotch, but have a difficult time keeping things aggressive after 4...Nf6.

This forum topic has been locked