MATRIX CHESS

NJ, it sure took you along time to figure out what all of the rest of us figured out a long time ago.  This guy is just a chickensh.t "wind" bag.  I check in with this thread now and then when I'm killing time just to see what's going on.  I admit taking a bit of immature pleasure in watching winbag (my nick name for winding-shu) make an utter fool of himself over and over again. 

Sorry for feeding the troll but:

His arguments can be summed up as follows:

1. matrix chess rules the earth (but I can't prove it because I'm too weak but my invisible friend (pavlov or parnov or some such nonsense) says so, so it must be true.

2. If you don't agree with me (and my invisible friend) then you are ignorant and closed minded. 

3. If you challenge me to a game I will refuse because I'm not good enough to demonstrate the vast superiority of the matrix system. But if only my invisible friend would play you then you'd surely be convinced.

4.  I will never, ever learn how to use the incredibly difficult to use diagram/analysis interface here in the forums because then I might be exposed as a complete idiot. 

5. Here is the best proof of the superiority of matrix chess over silly regular chess:

I'm curious, how do you play the Matrix system against the Scandinavian?

Hold on just one minute. This example shows that white brought out her Queen first and according to Windbag:

 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

So why is it that Black wins this game? According to the caption Boris Becker played Garry Kasparov and the result was 0-1. If you say that the Matrix System wins, this is a very poor example to show off the merits of playing Matrix Chess.

worse would be 2...Qh5 against the alekhine

I can't believe no one has replied to my amazing post (268).  This sucks. I think I'm going to have to go rogue here and start agreeing with windbag.

now I'm confuseled...

Oh I see, I got the number wrong it wasn't 265, it was 267. Copying it won't do it justice because there was a diagram and moves there...

Well windbag, at least you're finally admiting that you've made into an "ass".  Actually you've made yourself into an ass.  We've just been watching and helping.

Sorry for feeding the troll...

Thanks for 19,000 views guys. You are all helping me understand how important Matrix Chess is in the world of chess and how big it is going to become. I appreciate the people who have added helpful information as well as the people with constructive criticism.

If anyone lives near northern Indiana and would be interested in hearing Bernard Parham speak or play him in one of our many simuls, send me a message.

Thanks,

Rich

I checked out the gme Parham (2252) vs Weiss (2107) with tockfish. the game begam 1.e4 c5 2. Qh5 Nf6. According to Stockfish, Black held a slight advantage (=/+) until move 11, when Black made an inaccuracy that equalized the game. The game remained equal until move 15, when Black made a serious error that gave White a won game that he maintained until the end. What is striking in this game is the accuracy of White's moves, as if he were playing with the aid of my computer!

Now if someone wants to justify the Matrix theory, they should be able to go over each move of this game and show how the matrix theory predicts the same moves as a 20-move deep computer engine in a clearer way than deep analysis combined with the classical ideas of open files, outposts, and so on. Otherwise it is justified to believe that at worst this theory is just a bunch of mumbo-jumbo and at best it is just a reformulation of known theory.

Even more convincing would be a case where computer analysis  or classical ideas propose a losing move whereas the matrix theory produces the correct winning move.

I like that. The Dmitri Weiss game is one of the most essential games that Mr. Parham has his students go over. It's one of the best examples of matrix chess in its prime.

hey, I have only followed some of this discussion, but I don't understand why people think Qh5 is such a bad move as a second move. 

OPne reason is that computer engines show that it gives the Black opponent a won game!

The Megalomania of windbag, now evident for all to see.  Once again the dopey and talentless and downright ignorant lead the way...chess brownshirts. 

Megalomania is a non-clinical word defined as: A psychopathological condition characterized by delusional fantasies of wealth, power, or omnipotence.

Really? That's your best reasoning?

How many openings would never be played if everyone relied solely on a computer? And I'm really asking, I don't know.

Most of the openings regularly played by grandmasters could be played by computers,  based on their analysis. Computer analysis by Stockfish over 20 moves deep (one of the strongest engines) shows Black with a won game after 2 Qh5, but shows no increase for White for the second move in most openings except for gambits of course, where most engines show a slight advantage for the opponent based on material advantage. Of course the analysis could be "wrong" because of the horizon effect (say if there is a refutation on move 25), but this is unlikely. The only way to find out would be to pit a grandmaster playing the Queen move against a computer. Or maybe two computers...

As is well known the vulnerability of the Queen more than offsets its power in the early game if it goes out too early without a direct threat that the opponent cannot counter by a developing move. An attack on the Queen forces it to move, with the result that the opponent can quickly get a few tempi ahead, which means that the opponent has at least the initiative and probably more. The initiative along with a significant lead in development often means that a winning attack is in the works.

Ok, I understand what you're saying. I know Mr. Parham has played the highest rated computer and won prize money before, but I'm sure it wasn't the most up to date computer program.

As for the gaining of tempi, this is a good argument vs 2.Qh5 and is very controversial. I think it speaks to one's style of play. Although an opponent would be developing pieces while chasing the enemy queen, the queen would be moved to more aggressive positions. Of course there are problems that one could run into, but played well and the queen can have a very dampering effect on the opponents development in the long run. Much like any system can have problems but if played well would be very strong... Thus the essence of chess.

Either way, I appreciate the info you gave. Thanks.

What do you mean when you say "development in the long run"? I don't understand, because development is simply short term activation of pieces

QUOTE DRIZZTD:  "What do you mean when you say "development in the long run"? I don't understand, because development is simply short term activation of pieces"

 I've had games where the queens presence messes up the order of pieces being able to develop and then forceing other pieces into less desirable positions. Then, in an attempt to attack the queen, pieces are put in bad positions that normally they would never be in.