Is anything better for me than the Parham?

And christiansoldier, there you go again with the whining... You can't always have what you want, even the rolling stones say so.

when you said 50 i thought you ment Huck Finn, I actually liked TKM, but my favorite book I have read for school was The Hobbit

Actually, neither whatupyodog or I have recieved warnings, we have recieved a warning on this thread, but that's because jetfighter dropped an f-bomb.

I never have on this site, a mod can check all my posts, I am clean man clean.

Maybe the people who programmed this site shouldn't let you change quotes :P. I'd rather just talk about the actual opening, not get lectured about me using the world hell...

It's kinda sad. I still haven't had an answer to the OP, 24 pages of crap.

No actually here's how I look at this. The Parham is the benchmark, you gave me nothing better, so therefore the Parham is the best

With the Parham as the benchmark, I could say that the Grob Opening is the best.

The Parham in itself is not a bad opening per say, but compared to the Ruy Lopez, white does not have the normal opening advantage to work with.  In addition, players who have not learned classical opening fundamentals will stunt their chess growth by learning poor piece placement habits.

But in the end, you can play what you want.  Just don't expect to become a better player because of the parham.  Maybe it might make you a better middlegame player because you won't be able to beat most good players with the opening ;)

I wouldn't say the ruy lopez is better for white... I'd say it's just equally cramped for each side. I don't want to play a gambit, but there's nothing more aggressive than the Parham without gambitting, so it looks like the Parham is pretty good.

Once again christiansoldier, stop talking down to me. You're rating is lower than mine, and I don't appreciate it.

I play much better OTB, but what does that matter in the grand scheme of things, the Bc5 version of the Italian is pleanty agressive, if YOU make it that way, for example after c3, which you dubbed as quiet, d4 is the plan, and some fireworks can develop because white is trying to prove this plan works, and black is trying to prevent it while pushing his own agenda that he needs to strike at the white K.

Ratings mean nothing. My rating is low and I can ( and have) beaten 2200-2400 a couple of times.(Most of those games wern't Blunders)

I agree. Most people play better OTB. I use to play the Italian and I could create complications very easy.

Actually you usually go down a pawn or two after the c3 line.

yeah if I play Nf3 against e5 I go italian and evan's Gambit it. I most often play f4, OTB record, 1xx-0-0, online, 2x-1x-0 i do well with the KG, but here I mostly play it against people a couple hundred points above me. also the Ruy can turn very agressive, again its up to YOU, not the opening to make it that way, and the Parham is just as agressive as the Catalan IF your opponent knows how to play against it, which unfortunately most people don't

Why are you so afraid of gambits???

I wasn't talking about the Evans, I was talking about an immediate c3

Any attack can fall flat in chess. Otherwise, everyone would play that attack. So when your attack falls flat, would you rather be even or down in material?

A sound attack gives enough compensation for a material defect. You will never get an attack out of thin air...

Yes, but any attack can fall short against someone who knows what they're doing, I'd rather have a small positional downfall, then be down in material.

Tal would sack pieces just because it "felt" right even though he played some of the best players that ever lived.