I wasn't comparing baseball to openings, I was comaring it to principle. Most people believe you should push central pawns, develop knights and bishops, castle, then start looking to attack, or let's say overhand pitching.
Then there are people who believe you should fianchetto bishops, push flank pawns, and undermine the center from the outsides, or sidearm pitchers.
Then there are those who believe "the queen is the best piece, so let's use it". This is matrix chess, whereas the first two were classical and hypermodernism, respectively. Neither is correct, just different from eachother.
The ruy lopez is incredibly passive, you cannot name one line where it is aggresive. Gms play the ruy lopez all the time and the game always winds up a draw. The_Gavinator, the parham is definately the way to go.
I wasn't comparing baseball to openings, I was comaring it to principle. Most people believe you should push central pawns, develop knights and bishops, castle, then start looking to attack, or let's say overhand pitching.
Then there are people who believe you should fianchetto bishops, push flank pawns, and undermine the center from the outsides, or sidearm pitchers.
Then there are those who believe "the queen is the best piece, so let's use it". This is matrix chess, whereas the first two were classical and hypermodernism, respectively. Neither is correct, just different from eachother.
Putting Steinitz, Nimzovich and Parham in the same piece of text is an insult for two of the three. I will let you guess names.
Matrix chess has just come around. I'm sure the first time people saw hypermodernism they thought those guys were insane too.
He used his system to become a chess master, it obviously works pretty well...
Lol, I am quite rational, you guys just seem to be arguing with no merit...
In my opinion, the Parham is busted.
That f6 knight is easily pinned, to stop it black must do h6 followed by g5, and ruin their kingside. A strong attacker could easily exlpoit that.
Here is a sample line...The moves might not be sound, but this line makes my point.
move seven would be Nc3
Ok, so now I figure he's just trolling![Laughing]( "Laughing")
. Gav's totally ignoring comments and keeps repeating the same junk.
7. h3 is a waste of a move...
I actually like to play Nc3 on move 6, to offer immediate support against d5
The knight is still extremely vulnerable. Anyways, nobody has given a better attacking option, in most other lines white dominates.
nobody has given a better attacking option, in most other lines white dominates.
What do you mean by that???
Name another opening where white is better at attacking (non-gambit) :P. That's all I've wanted from the start.
People sacrifice material for tempo, or for a strong positional advantage. Why would you want to avoid sacrifices when you get good compensation?
Study Tal's games and realize you can attack from a slow position. Tal played the Ruy Lopez and created good attacking chances.
The ruy lopez is incredibly passive, you cannot name one line where it is aggresive. Gms play the ruy lopez all the time and the game always winds up a draw. The_Gavinator, the parham is definately the way to go.