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?
ok show me your analysis. Are you using a a board? Because it looks to me like Nb4 is winning
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.
is it even possible to be aggressive without wanting to gambit?
if you're afraid that your attack would fail then you can either study some games of the opening, or get better at calculating to actually find out the resulting position of your attack.
if chess was so simple that a certain opening would provide an unstoppable attack for a certain color, then chess would only be as interesting as checkers
Maybe it is better, but in my line I show him how weak is Queen in field at Opening. My pieces are making threats, so it's like making fun of strongest piece itself. There is a point in my line. If you don't believe me, try to find better squares for White Queen.
Well, that's just because, when one is learning how to play properly "normal" Opening, he is also learning how to bite tactical mistakes like early Queen rides.
I could teach you few things. Let's play some games (live with long time or online). I will be ready around hour and half from now, or tommorow if you'd like. So try me.
Well christiansoldier threw away a turn by castling. Of course it's gonna win, nobody can beat engines nowadays.
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.
kingside castling is a mistake. Queenside on Parham.
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?
ok show me your analysis. Are you using a a board? Because it looks to me like Nb4 is winning
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.
@alexlaw I was saying white is giving away his opening advantage by playing the Parham, that is to say Black is equal without effort
Here's the mainline as I see it:
And I apologize for putting Bg4 instead of Bg5, I just got back from tennis and wasn't thinking my best.
is it even possible to be aggressive without wanting to gambit?
if you're afraid that your attack would fail then you can either study some games of the opening, or get better at calculating to actually find out the resulting position of your attack.
if chess was so simple that a certain opening would provide an unstoppable attack for a certain color, then chess would only be as interesting as checkers
Comment in game.
:)
Maybe it is better, but in my line I show him how weak is Queen in field at Opening. My pieces are making threats, so it's like making fun of strongest piece itself. There is a point in my line. If you don't believe me, try to find better squares for White Queen.
:)
But you know, Gavinator wants to be attacker, so he should play as Black this Perham, don't you think?
Somehow I feel, you wasting your time.
Well, that's just because, when one is learning how to play properly "normal" Opening, he is also learning how to bite tactical mistakes like early Queen rides.
I could teach you few things. Let's play some games (live with long time or online). I will be ready around hour and half from now, or tommorow if you'd like. So try me.
Lots of innacuracies imo.