Is anything better for me than the Parham?

I never said that. Quit misquoting an shoving words in my mouth, eric ... oh wait, that might get me banned. Crap I hate politics

my general rule is if "Your not threatening mate and there is a night on c6, play Ne2". So this is irrelevant, just stop posting boards.

watch your language

never said that either, I have never use that word on this site.

Please, everyone, let's leave the swearing off Chess.com.  It's fine to have a debate, but there is no need for horrible language.  If it continues, I'll have no choice but to lock or delete the thread.  :)

Thanks for your understanding, guys. 

please do the later of the two

kingside castling is a mistake. Queenside on Parham.

10 d4 was better, 12. d4 looked good also 13.d4 was the last shot at it after Bd3 white's game went down hill very quickly

Love how the computer created those attacking chances. That is a good example of how bad the Parham really is.

Well christiansoldier threw away a turn by castling. Of course it's gonna win, nobody can beat engines nowadays.

 I think that game shows us the best way to fight the parham. Use the center and f pawn(s) to attack white's prematurely developed pieces.

As ChristianSoldier007 pointed out, Queenside castling is horrible. Gavinator, if that doesn't work, what does?

also you can't say you are better than a person unless you beat them. unless it is fairly obvi, like Kaspy saying he is better than me

I like 4. Qe7, because I don't like my fianccheto bishop being blunted by my own pawn

There is no attack actually , that is the point.The word attack when you are talking about Parham is sarcastic.

The point is  as the GM said , that you need to be clever to understand when masters do nonsense, because they are humans and as humans they do nonsense.

Parham became a master with Parham attack but why is this good?How are you sure that he won't become a GM with playing something else?

Dozens of excellent players never played it.World Champions and candidates of World Champion.Why all these are not an argument that Parham attack is not good?I never understood why you choose Parham over Kasparov, Petrosian ,Karpov and others?Doesn't that sound total nonsense to you?.

     It is like I want to play Basketball and I prefer my neighborhood's team because it plays Matrix Basketball(lol) instead of NBA 

Is it rude to call this totally stupid(hypothetically speaking)?Or the truth?

IMO, the Parham Attack is really not so bad (nor very good either).

From a theoretical standpoint white should be playing to keep his advantage of the first move, black to equalize. The Parham is bad in that it gives Black easy equality, with best play (but not more than that). 

It is however, still playable, as Parham and Nakamura have shown. It also has some psychological pluses -- e.g. some surprise value, and at the amateur level, some insult value that causes the opponent perhaps either to take you less seriously (thus playing less accurately) or to want to punish you at all costs (thus overextending himself, ie playing less accurately). 

Beyond that though -- why give up your theoretical opening advantage as white for no apparent reason? 

7...Nb4 is not winning. Actually black has slipped from a slightly advantageous position to an equal one after 8. Na3 Be6 9. Bxe6 fxe6. Na5 suggested by Alex looks better.

We have reviewed our theory. After 6. d3 d6, move 7 is Bg4.

you said it was 6...d6. I then would do Bg4.

5. Ne2 Bg7 6. d3 d6 7. Bg5.