Atos wrote:
The player who won against Fischer in a simul was Fenner Parham, not Bernard Parham.
It's true. Bernard Parham wasn't on chessgames.com, but Fenner Parham was, and he beat Fischer.
MATRIX CHESS
Sort:
Atos wrote:
The player who won against Fischer in a simul was Fenner Parham, not Bernard Parham.
Fenner Parham was the grandfather of Bernard and he origionally registered for the simulatneous chess exhibition. Bernard Parham was the one who actually played and won.
Tricklev wrote:
Name one grandmaster who plays by these geometrical concepts.
Maurice Ashley.
DON'T FEED THE TROLL !!
Windingshu, my grammar may not be perfect, I learnt english at school for about 2 years. For me your Parham is not a "true" master, I checked the official world chess federation, the FIDE, where there is only 3 type of masters (beside the females): FM, IM and GM. In international tournaments, you will see that title beside the name of the titled player. Oh surprise, no recognized master called Parham in www.fide.com
I know in America they uses names as NM but that's not so strong, I think I would be a NM in America, or really close if I lived there.
1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 is not so horrible, so a good player may still win with that but not because of the opening... White want to get a theoretical advantage from the opening, with 2.Qh5 Black has already easy equality. The fact that no GM have played that seriously (ok the exception GM Nakamura has played it a few times in tournament play but he has been punished by others GM and he stopped that shit). You are a beginner, play it a whole year, you will not improve much and you will notice that your opening is not sufficient anymore at a certain level and you will regret to have been losing so much time with that opening.
At the end, I teach chess myself, and I have never recommanded to a beginner to play early Qh5, even if my kids are happy to win like this against total newbies. But they notices quickly that this does not work against a better opposition. I teach tactics, basics endings, positionnal ideas and sound principes with games of strongs players... If you had to read one book, you should buy "road to chess improvment" by GM Yermolinsky who lives in America for a long time. I would laugh to see Parham playing a quick Qh5 against him and your hero would be happy to have 0,5/10.
Feb 21, 2010
0
#207
tngerb wrote:
polydiatonic wrote:
tngerb wrote:
I think Parham or someone pretty good played those games. STOP TROLL HATING. YOURE THE TROLL!
Okay tngerb, even a troll deserves love and I guess you're the guy to give him a big bro hug. Enjoy, just remember to shower off afterwards.
Btw, what makes any of you even think that WINDBAGshu even knows this guy Parham? It could all just be a hoax. Sure, Parham won't set up an account to demonstrate his theories... righhhhhhhht. That really makes sense. Instead we've got this windbag speaking for him by proxy.
Oh btw, did I ever mention that I have a friend who's a Grand Master who has been renting a room in my house for a couple of years? He says that he took some lessons with Parham for a couple of months when he was a kid and says Parham's ideas are completely ludicrous. Seriously. You don't believe me? Prove me wrong.
As far at the "good games" Windy could just as easily be playing the first couple of moves and then using an engine for the "good" games and pretending it's Parham. This whole thread is idiocy.
He could just set up another account and pretend it was Parham. AND if he was using an engine there wouldn't be the inaccuracies on both sides and itd be easy to detect. play me and lets prove whos right.
Oh wait a minute...what a flawless plan you have described. He couldn't possible find away to go around that engine method. Could he...
Oh wait...he could use the engine for some moves, play a couple of his own windbagshu moves and then go back to the engine. That wouldn't trigger your "engine detection idea". Besides who's running engine detection software on this moron? Not me.
Finally, why would I want to play you in particular? Are you saying you're a matrix chess devotee? Have you learned and played using only this method?
Btw,
Feb 21, 2010
0
#208
Oh yeah Maruice Ashley is not the GM renting a room at my house. He prefers to be unamed and stay out of this idiotic thread. He will occasionally allow me to quote him if he choose to participate further than the above mention.
Finally:
don't feed the beginner fake pretending to know Parham troll
polydiatonic wrote:
Oh yeah Maruice Ashley is not the GM renting a room at my house. He prefers to be unamed and stay out of this idiotic thread. He will occasionally allow me to quote him if he choose to participate further than the above mention.
Finally:
don't feed the beginner fake pretending to know Parham troll
agreed, now can someone please close this thread? it is killing this forum
jarkov wrote:
polydiatonic wrote:
Oh yeah Maruice Ashley is not the GM renting a room at my house. He prefers to be unamed and stay out of this idiotic thread. He will occasionally allow me to quote him if he choose to participate further than the above mention.
Finally:
don't feed the beginner fake pretending to know Parham troll
agreed, now can someone please close this thread? it is killing this forum
Nah no need to close the thread, we can live with a little wackiness.
jarkov wrote:
polydiatonic wrote:
Oh yeah Maruice Ashley is not the GM renting a room at my house. He prefers to be unamed and stay out of this idiotic thread. He will occasionally allow me to quote him if he choose to participate further than the above mention.
Finally:
don't feed the beginner fake pretending to know Parham troll
agreed, now can someone please close this thread? it is killing this forum
Jarkov, you do not have to follow this thread. And you especially dont have to contribute to the discussion.
Just pretend like you never saw this post my friend, and I will pretend I never read any of your comments.
ArKheiN_ wrote:
Windingshu, my grammar may not be perfect, I learnt english at school for about 2 years. For me your Parham is not a "true" master, I checked the official world chess federation, the FIDE, where there is only 3 type of masters (beside the females): FM, IM and GM. In international tournaments, you will see that title beside the name of the titled player. Oh surprise, no recognized master called Parham in www.fide.com
I know in America they uses names as NM but that's not so strong, I think I would be a NM in America, or really close if I lived there.
1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 is not so horrible, so a good player may still win with that but not because of the opening... White want to get a theoretical advantage from the opening, with 2.Qh5 Black has already easy equality. The fact that no GM have played that seriously (ok the exception GM Nakamura has played it a few times in tournament play but he has been punished by others GM and he stopped that shit). You are a beginner, play it a whole year, you will not improve much and you will notice that your opening is not sufficient anymore at a certain level and you will regret to have been losing so much time with that opening.
At the end, I teach chess myself, and I have never recommanded to a beginner to play early Qh5, even if my kids are happy to win like this against total newbies. But they notices quickly that this does not work against a better opposition. I teach tactics, basics endings, positionnal ideas and sound principes with games of strongs players... If you had to read one book, you should buy "road to chess improvment" by GM Yermolinsky who lives in America for a long time. I would laugh to see Parham playing a quick Qh5 against him and your hero would be happy to have 0,5/10.
So you would be a National Master if you lived in the US... Prove it... Mr. Parham has.
I will play Matrix chess for the rest of my career in chess, and I will enjoy every second of it. I'm curious why you think I will not improve with it? Have you known anyone who has played it for a year? Funny, Mr. Parham does, and their success was astounding.
What you think about 2.Qh5 is different from what you know. This openeing coupled with Matrix chess principles is very dangerous for many reasons, one of which is because on the lack of knowledge traditional players have on it.
Im not saying tradition players don't have a ton of knowledge, they do, and far more than myself. But their knowledge is limited when it comes to the subject of Matrix chess.
Um guys and ladies,
First my apologies if I missed this being said already - I followed this thread for a while but maybe not all the way through, but...
Isn't the "Chess Drum" a parody site? It advocates a new styleof chess where black moves first, to offset the racial inequality that currently exists in the game!
Please someone correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the site meant to be a joke??
LarryTroxler wrote:
Um guys and ladies,
First my apologies if I missed this being said already - I followed this thread for a while but maybe not all the way through, but...
Isn't the "Chess Drum" a parody site? It advocates a new styleof chess where black moves first, to offset the racial inequality that currently exists in the game!
Please someone correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the site meant to be a joke??
No, the site is not a joke. I am not sure I understand the reason they said that but I'm guessing it's because they are a site that is dedicated to African American people who have acheived a lot.
My best guess is that it is a joke to go along with the African American theme of the site. Not 100% sure on that tho.
ManicDragon wrote:
Windingshu wrote:
What you think about 2.Qh5 is different from what you know. This openeing coupled with Matrix chess principles is very dangerous for many reasons, one of which is because on the lack of knowledge traditional players have on it.
Im not saying tradition players don't have a ton of knowledge, they do, and far more than myself. But their knowledge is limited when it comes to the subject of Matrix chess.
And the pre-existing knowledge they lack in "matrix" chess they make up for through the possession of functioning brains.
That's a unique take on it. Not sure I agree with it but unique none the less.
Don't you think that to evaluate 'alternative medicine' you would need to understand 'traditional medicine' first ? Otherwise, how would you even know that one is traditional and the other alternative ?
I won't go to America just to get a NM there. I have nothing to prove. I just heard about ELO equivalent and it seems that my official ELO is around that strenght. Matrix chess...Never heard about that name before you and I am not surprised about that. And guess what, I did not need that to have the level of play of Parham. And I am sure he would still have his level (or stronger, who knows) if he played "serious" chess. How can you know if you will enjoy that so limited strategy all your life when you just began to play chess? I loved and play religiously the same gambit for about 4 years but now I know chess is not limited to one way of playing and to improve I have to open my mind. Open your mind to others ways of playings, try differents things against opponents slighty stronger than you, etc. I think it's my last message here, good luck with your stagnatic "matrix" school or welcome to the real world of chess and then I say to you "congratulation" that day.
Atos wrote:
Don't you think that to evaluate 'alternative medicine' you would need to understand 'traditional medicine' first ? Otherwise, how would you even know that one is traditional and the other alternative ?
Of course. But wouldn't that go the same for you? Don't you need to know about all medicine in order to know which is best. Just because traditional chess has been around longer doesn't mean it's better.
ArKheiN_ wrote:
I won't go to America just to get a NM there. I have nothing to prove. I just heard about ELO equivalent and it seems that my official ELO is around that strenght. Matrix chess...Never heard about that name before you and I am not surprised about that. And guess what, I did not need that to have the level of play of Parham. And I am sure he would still have his level (or stronger, who knows) if he played "serious" chess. How can you know if you will enjoy that so limited strategy all your life when you just began to play chess? I loved and play religiously the same gambit for about 4 years but now I know chess is not limited to one way of playing and to improve I have to open my mind. Open your mind to others ways of playings, try differents things against opponents slighty stronger than you, etc. I think it's my last message here, good luck with your stagnatic "matrix" school or welcome to the real world of chess and then I say to you "congratulation" that day.
Thanks for your contribution.
Windingshu wrote:
Atos wrote:
Don't you think that to evaluate 'alternative medicine' you would need to understand 'traditional medicine' first ? Otherwise, how would you even know that one is traditional and the other alternative ?
Of course. But wouldn't that go the same for you? Don't you need to know about all medicine in order to know which is best. Just because traditional chess has been around longer doesn't mean it's better.
Yes it does. But, if perhaps it doesn't, maybe the fact that it's what the super GMs play does.
The player who won against Fischer in a simul was Fenner Parham, not Bernard Parham.