Is anything better for me than the Parham?

I haven't read any of the posts so I don't know what others said.

Parham Atack is very good.You take out the queen very early(move 2!!!), violating a very important principle with no serious reason(in fact with no reason at all)."So what?" you will say."Who the hell needs basic principles?".So very true , who the hell needs them indeed.

   I don't really understand what your goal is.From your opening post it is not clear.Is your goal winning or understanding and improving?Winning unfortunately doesn't mean improving .You can stay all your life at 1300+ winning some of your rating , lose from others without anything change , ever.Is that what you want?If yes , it's fine by me , stop reading.

     I will assume that you want to improve.

"How does that can happen?"

By understanding the basics and then the more complicated aspects of the game

"Why do I need the basics?"

Very simple , because every complicated aspect of the game is nothing more than a more complicated form of a basic principle.If you don't understand basic principles you will never improve , simple as that.

"And why Nakamura plays it?"

Nakamura doesn't try to learn chess , you do.Nakamura has his own agenda and his own priorities and they are vastly different than yours so  the "Nakamura played it , I can play it" argument can only be hilarious and nothing else.

   When you improve(if that ever happen which I seriously doubt the way you think)you will realise why Parham attack is not a good opening.Parham attack is actually an excellent opening that unfortunately produces unusual positions.In , let's say ,5 years from now , your understanding on the basic strategic concepts will be exactly the same if you keep playing Parham attack.It is exactly that reason that makes experts around the world to suggest basic openings that can teach basic positions for beginners.Openings like Sokolski(1.b4) , Nimzowitch Larsen(1.b3) and others are not suggested not because they are bad but because they don't produce the positions a beginner needs to learn how to handle if he wants to progress.  

     You  have done the same eternal beginner mistake.You seek the perfect opening.You ask from people to recommend you an opening that suits your style.At the same time , it is obvious from your games that you lack even the basic evaluation and strategic skills.You don't ask for good middlegame-books though.You ask for openings that suits your style.And if they don't give you any you will reach the conclusion that Parham is the best you can have.

Yes I know , I saw the games , sometimes you win the pawn at e5 , sometimes even more.Games that have no instructive value at all (not even the slightest).You do win some games , but chess is not so easy.With anything you get you give something back.Do you realise what you sacrifice for these unimportant wins?Improvement , any chance you might had for it.

So the critical question is:

Is anything better for you than the Parham?

You must answer that , no one else. 

"Correct"-also Me

"With anything you get you give something back. ---Michael.

Excellent proverb and one I had not heard quite so succinctly. (Although Macca came close with "the love you take is equal to the love you make".

Gavinator, you play such a garbage like the Parham and now you want a good agressive alternative...but,

1.) you dont want to play standard openings

2.) you dont want to sacrifice material

3.) you dont want to take any risks

hmmm...i would say you should stay at the Parham...

I didn't say I refuse to play a standard opening. I just said I want an aggressive non-gambit. I feel the Parham does this, and it just so happens it is off-beat. I feel the fried liver meets this goal, but the giuoco piano is hard to meet, therefore I don't play the Italian game. Also, the petroff and philidor defences are annoying. Scotch is ok, but after 4...Nf6 is hard to get non-passive. I would love any recommendations, they would be greatly appreciated!

And michael-g, I read your post, my question to you is why must I master basic principles to improve? The Parham is very tactical, why wouldn't that improve me? I would make mistakes and learn from them, just like if I played the ruy or scotch or anything else. I remember you saying the Parham unfortunately produces unusual posions. What's the harm in that? Chess is full of nearly endless positions, what is negative then them being different that the book 25th move of the ruy lopez?

screw the 25th move of the Ruy, break when you feel like it with a natural non bluncer

No it is actually like saying that to be a successful baseball pitcher, you must pitch overhand. That doens't account for the other methods like sidearms and knuckleball. Just because overhand is more popular, doesn't mean the other ways are wrong.

You are all homos and suck at sports, so stop making sports references. Jetfighter, you are just plain dumb and your comment didnt make any sense at all.

says the kid who thinks track is a sport.

Says the kid who got kicked off to be a band faggot.

Bro i'm the best in the state of florida at my instrument, you're not in the top 5 at our school

thats funny cuz no one gives a shit about band, its likke crew, ur in the top 5 in ur instrument but theres like 5 different sections for your instrument and like 10 different instrument sections of which u play the one with the least people. Plus, its all subjective.

No actually, I'm #1 sophomore in the state of florida, you aren't even best sophomore in our school. Getting back to the point, I don't believe that I need to follow the "opening principles" to be a successful chess player. If I can play the Parham, then reach the midgame and use effective tactics, then employ a powerful endgame, I don't see how that makes me a weak chess player.

it did make sence, maybe just not to you

any way, I am actualy decent Track and Field (Pole Vault if you must know), Not world Class by any means, but if I work on it through colege, then I would be at about 19 feet by the time I Graduate. That estimate accounts for stalling

Track is sport, is the title of worlds fastest man given to the person who runs a 4.01 fourty yard dash, or the person who runs a 9.48 second hundred, which isn't even the fastest event if measured by average time per hundred meters, the 200 is the fastest if measured in that manner.

It's too late for me to say that, I'm afraid. 

Parham is aggresive and tactical if you are unable to understand   what aggressive and tactical means and you don't realise that opponet's blunders and bad opening play is what makes Parham look like aggresive and tactical.

What could be better to spam Chess.com with than ratatouie's ratatouille?...

Finally, someone with a new dish for the forums. I was getting tired of all that breakfast food!

You are all a bunch of spammers.