MATRIX CHESS

Has anyone ever heard of Matrix Chess?

Take a second to google it, and check out the talkging drum website. It is based off 2.Qh5 (Qh4) and was popularized and developed by Bernard Parham.

It is an extremely interesting and controversial system of playing chess and has proven to be an extremely successful style of play. I have been playing for almost 3 months and am USCF rated 1085 and am 1108 on here.

The reason I am posting this is to answer any questions someone might have about Matrix Chess. Due to the lack of information available, I feel I can help those who are truley curious.

Rich

I have a clarifying question: You're saying 2. Qh5 is a good move? Quickest possible checkmate?

I'd like to face this system.

Yes, Matrix Chess advocates that the one who brings out the queen earliest wins.  Of course there are discrepencies about the safety of the queen, but matrix players look at it as the queen being the most powerful piece so why not use her as early as possible.

There are many responses from a traditional chess player, mainly because the logic behind a matrix player's moves seems illogical to a traditional chess player and vise-versa.

Extremely succesful? Name one succesful player that advocates and play matrix chess.

I find this system to be hilarious. Quite hilarious. I would dearly love to play against it just to prove my point.

I found one!

It seems that Boris Becker advocates this opening (source)

And he most certainly was a very succesfull (tennis)player

the typical way of defending forces equality fast (and then some)

and the gambit against it (Nf6/Be7)is absolutly crushing. Nakamura played it and got killed by the gambit in only about 20 moves

I would also say that Nokamura is successful, wouldn't you? Perhaps he doesn't play only Matrix Chess, but he certainly has incorporated it into his strageties.

DrizztD, I would be more than happy to play you. I would like you to keep in mind that I am only 3 months into chess and my understanding of Matrix Chess is not very high at all. If you would like, I could arrange for you to play a master who plays 100% Matrix Chess.

I believe he had this to say about his loss. "I do believe that 2.Qh5 is a playable move, in fact I had a very good position in the game, and was close to winning if I had in fact played 23.e5." 

I am not claiming to know a lot about this system, but Bernard Parham certainly does as he has acheived outstanding results in short periods of time with his past students.

If you would like to dipute this style of play, please share on what you think Matrix Chess is all about.

yeah he is very successful, but the few games he did try it he analyized it afterwords and came up that it was no good.

and Im guessing that the master in Illinios is the only master who plays it. forget his name, but Im guessing thats who youre referring to. Id say for a surprise weapon there are still other unsound openings that are better.

IMO if youre just starting out learing good principles is what counts.

The master I'm referring to is Bernard Parham.

 Nokamura plays 2.Qh5 online frequently and there is a high possibility it will make an appearance during his world championship games.

It would be great to play you. Also, it would be phenomenal to play a master who uses this. That would simply mean an advantage right out of the opening. Though I probably wouldn't win, I mean, he's still a master. One question: Is this matrix system used only after e5, or against other things too?

Matrix Chess developes the same whether the opponent plays e5 or not. In some cases it may take longer to bring out the queen, or she may need to go to a different square.

Either way, Matrix Chess is based off the geometry of each piece. In Matrix notation, the queen is a star, the king is a pound sign, the knight is a diamond, bishop is an X, and the rook is a plus. Any responses to any move is based off the assesment of all of these geometrical patterns combined on any given piece. The process used to gather this information is called indexing.

That was a lot of information poorly written (sorry), but it makes sense once you begin learning...

DrizzdT, will you be available tomorrow around noon (eastern)? I could set you up vs the creator of the system in a half hour match? Let me know.

If you have any other questions I am more than happy to try and answer them.

Rich

No, I won't be available around lunch. I'm sorry. Maybe another time? And I'm curious as to what you mean when you say moves are made based on the geometric relationships of pieces. Could you explain that please?

I laughed out loud when I read this. I'm still laughing.

And you base all of your verdicts on how somebody looks? I'm not sure why you would think that is an argument at all. Your arguments are ignorant and hostile. I could sit here and defend Matrix Chess but you are 1 of millions with the same argument. The things you are claiming to know are nothing but misconceptions based on the little knowledge you have.

I would much rather actually answer legitamate questions.

DrizztD, to answer your question, imagine the geometrical pattern created when you combine an X, #, *, +, and diamond on an 8X8 matrix. If you run through this pattern for each piece you will find unique squares referred to as "coincidence squares". When these squares are occupied they interlock specific pieces' geometries in ways that would exploit your opponent's weakness.

As I said earlier, the process of gathering the information on a pieces geometry is called indexing. A matrix player's move is almost always on the opponents last move's geometry. Simply put, when you move your, say, queen, I would index the square it came from and the square it ended on (to and from squares) and based on the geometry of one of those squares I would make my next move.

There is an other thread here about this opening that started, I think, yesterday. It's at:

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/game-analysis/sosis-opening

I don't know about all of this geometrical indexing mumbo jumbo, but it seems to be another pointless exercise in trying to play chess with out really learning the game.  It's like a quick fix instant diet pill that promises you'll loose 40 pounds in 3 days.  All you have to do is eat the "blue pill", or was it the "red pill".  Jeez...I can't remember. 

Anyway, I've faced this opening several times here in live chess with the black pieces and each time it was a crush againt the (invariably) beginner who was going for the throat.  My post on the on the linked thread shows how I like to play against it. 

Let us make one thing clear, Nakamura didn't play Matrix chess, he didn't base his analyse on some geometrical ideas, he based them upon chess guidelines, ideas and the position he was looking at.

Besides, his flirt with the 2. Qh5 in simuls, online and various non important matches means nothing.

Windingshu I will play you in an unrated and can you please explain to me how your moves correspond to this "matrix strategy"

I have never heard of it but if you could explain how it works that would be interesting.  

I would be happy to.

I've noticed that most of you guys who are arguing against Matrix Chess are regurgitating the same shallow information. My assumption is that all of you are reading the same website (talking drum) and basing your analysis off nothing more than that. That is fine, think what you will. Ask constructive questions if you'd like to learn, shoot into defensive mode if you'd like to stay the same.

It boils down to the fact that with the few students who have given Matrix Chess a chance have succeeded at rapid rates without spending their whole bankrole and way too much time learning endgames.

Polydiotonic, I'm sure you have faced this opening before, as have I. It is clear that most players who play Qh5 are only imitating a successful 4 move possible check mate and then reverting back to classical chess. There is a noticeable difference between a matrix trained chess player and an imitator, much like their is a difference between the offbrand knockoff and the legit brand.