Is anything better for me than the Parham?

No... I know your not.

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/off-topic/forum-posting-rules---be-nice--no-religious-or-political-debate

.

If you're tryin to say those are bad words or something, how is Hitler a bad word? He is a person, and he was actually a freakin genious, I bet he was tons smarter then you.

.

If you don't stop it I will report you to help & support. This may result in banning from the site ?

At Christian soilder: are the lines I suggested any good? Maybe gavinator didn't like some of the questionable moves.

.

Rubidium, where are the lines? Could you repost them?

I'm posting points to help gavinator see them

Here are some lines:

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

Gavinator: most of the lines I posted at pages 34-35. I questioned the position at the end of christian solider's analysis, saying Ra2 and a4 hurts the pawn structure for black. I also did not enjoy b5, and instead recommended taking the bishop with the knight. I wondered about qd6, (after bd5) driving the bishop back while getting rid of the pin. I didn't say this before, but c3 looks abut better than ne2, more center control and the knight has no useful place to go for the moment. I questioned qe7, and rather play d6 intending bg4. Did you not see my comments?

Folks, keep it clean in here.  Remember, Chess.com is a family site.  :)

Getting back to the OP (imagine that!),

No, because playing anything other than the Parham will cause you to suddenly lose your online popularity, which you clearly cannot live without.

As a side note: if you really would like lines ironed out, I would suggest actually posting them for feedback, but not before running an engine check to avoid pieces from dropping all over the place (in which case opening analysis would be pointless). Heck, go buy yourself a Parham book if you're so inclined.

Using an engine to analyze an opening is stupid, example from a game I had in a irl otb game:

You should use your human knowledge to analyze an opening and an engine to double check. Most engines can calculate the tactics of opening very well. Thus, if I check my lines with an engine I won't drop pieces and get my play called garbage. Also, while a low advantage doesn't mean anything in openings or endings to an engine, if the engine gets to above -1 for black you know something's gone wrong with white's opening, especially in an open position that engines don't have as much trouble with. In addition I use human analysis by strong players, including GMs and IMs, who analyze that this opening allows easy equality, as well as my own analysis. I don't get the relevance of the game you posted, white does gain an advantage in the few moves you posted (the position beforehand looks equal, but after Qc4 white has complete light square control and pressure against c7). Perhaps you didn't leave the engine on long enough for it to notice this?

is the position equal after nd5? Hardly. Blacks plan in this position is kingside play. In the pos after nd5 there is no way blacks counterplay would be sufficent.

I agree that engine use is stupid for learning openings. However, no engine is stupid enough to immediately hang pieces in the opening, which some of these supposed Parham lines have been doing. Thus, I suggested using an engine to check these "theoretical novelties" for tactical blunders before even putting them on the table.

There's no way that could be offensive language, I stated that a genius man was smart...

And Rubidium, there's so many comments, I must have glanced over them, there are so many posts on here. Could you put them on a board?