The_Gavinator wrote:
Yes, but you don't have to send out a lone soldier in advance just so he can get shot.
You are not looking at the big picture. He is sent out to open up lines for attack.
Is anything better for me than the Parham?
Sort:
A strong general can fend off any attack.
i know, maybe you shouldn't use the war references then...
The_Gavinator wrote:
Yes, but you don't have to send out a lone soldier in advance just so he can get shot.
Wait, now i'm confused. I thought you were advocating the parham?
I am, you don't have to send out a pawn to get uselessly taken, as they think is good.
The KG is a fine and aggressive opening to play, even GMs play it, unlike the Parham...
I was talking about the others...
The_Gavinator wrote:
I was talking about the others...
What others?
May 17, 2012
0
#330
The Evan's and KG have produced some of the best known games, the Parham hasn't been played by anyone who could do that in a long time.
I do not understand your logic very much...but I recommend you the scotch. It is very aggressive aiming for immediate center control.
Actually the Scotch is a good suggestion. It has the added bonus of being aggressive by gambiting or by the regular lines.
If Kasparov says it is good, then I will put my money on it.
Nakamura said the Parham is good, but you don't put money on that :P.
Where did he say that? Can you post a link? I would love to see that.
May 17, 2012
0
#335
no he said it had potential, totally different, one means that it should be played (good) saying it has potential means that it requires caution to play it.
I don't think he said it was good. If I remember correctly, he said it was a playable variation, but it didn't offer white an advantage, just equality.
May 17, 2012
0
#338
He said playable, aka has potential, not good. also his opponent was an IM so if he had played someone arround his strenght, he would have surely lost
Actually it was a GM...
Yes, but you don't have to send out a lone soldier in advance just so he can get shot.