MATRIX CHESS

Because there are too many beginners who don't understand basic chess priniciples and want an easy "answer" about how to play well.  frump

I look forward to what you come up with.

hey, for one, I am not a master will never be a master, but I play queen hh5 most of the time i play. I don't pretend anything special but it is definitely a fun opening to play. I invite people to look through some of my games (and many of which are loses butI feel in a lot of those, it is based on a misscalculation or blunder further on down the road) but it can develop into some very fun and interesting positions. Even if there may be technically an advantage for black the element of surprise can be very beneficial too, because honestly how many of you study up how to beat 2. qh5. There are quite a few nasty little traps one can fall in if your not careful, and from whites perspective for awhile black must play a predictable line to refute mate threats. (but in my opinion the name "matrix theory" is just a silly way of saying be careful and look where pieces  can go.) and also by the way I have played many games with parham, and I was originally skeptical of the queen coming out early too. 

Nobody has said that Qh5 can't be played, especially for fun and amusement.  The reason why most more advanced players have just dropped out of this thread is WindBag's insistance that this system is superior to everything else out there, including what the absolutely strongest players in the world are doing.  He's really just a fanboy of some minor master that he (Says) he knows who apparently advocates this silliness.   I started out here on this thread in support of windbag's right to express his opinions and try out his theories but went into the "windbag is a troll" mode when I realised he was not interested in hearing anything related to actual chess wisdom.

Windbag's inability to defend even his most central thesis is evident and laughable.  Even the guy he likes to "stroke" (Partum?) has apparently lost like 200 rating points since he started playing this way.  This is according to someone elses post who went and looked up the guys over the board record.

I don't know a thing about Matrix Chess, but I do know the Qh5 opening very well. I played it a few times, and I played against it many, many, many, many times. Did you get the word many? I have a couple of friends who like to play it, so I'll probably be facing it soon again.

I consider it to be a weak attack. And it seems I'm not the only one. After all, it's named Patzer Opening as well.

The way I see it, there are two things we can do:

1. Discard it until some GM gives proof of its playability -wich might happen, who knows-.

2. Study it to find proof of its playability. But, I'd rather leave that to GM's and/or theoreticians, I just feel I still have a lot to learn about other openings first.

Just in case you're interested, I'm the guy who translated the Wikipedia article "Parham Attack" into Spanish, back in 2008 (you will know because of my user name -- it's the same as here). And since then, I've had a special feeling about it. But, like I said, It's considered to be a weak opening by most -if not all- GM's. I don't think there's much more to say. If I'm gonna follow someone blindly, I'd pick a GM over a NM or any other sort of M, or even m.

Have a nice day, everyone...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parham_Attack

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ataque_Parham

Deep position analysis with about 30 variations and sub-variations shows that Black either obtains equality or a slight advantage in all variations.The problem for White is that Black's most obvious moves are the ones that yield the advantage.

Sol the question is whether or not the surprise effect is worth White's giving up his initial advantage.

Interesting. I think the surprise effect coupled with the fact that white is much much more comfortable with the positions 2.Qh5 will lead to can give a strong advantage.

We played the Sosis a lot when we were kids.  I actually won many games with it.  I'll bet it might actually still be pretty good in Blitz, against an unwary opponent, but most people will know how to refute it.  Getting your queen out early is just bad because she gets harassed and trapped.

Once you have some stronger opening repetoires under your belt, you will probably not play this so much.

Idiotic. Really idiotic, but unfortunatley typical for windbag.  It's not more comfortable to be loosing. Surprise is not a factor in considering an openings soundess.

Does this opening idea work with the Black pieces as well?

Can anyone do an analysis of a game using the method? Explaing what move should have been made (instead of the one played) using this Matrix? It might explain how the math works with the system, because I don't get it.

Sure they can. What they can't do is analyze some endings.

it sounds cool, and is powerful the first time, (against begginers), but there's no true short cuts in chess against other chess players in the master level, or just intermediate and advanced.  If you want to be good at chess, don't waste your time searching for easy short cuts (without doing the hard work too), BUT, I'm only saying you still need to study hard.  You can still explore matrix chess, plus, it seems cool

Only the name is cool.  The rest is BullSh*t.  If it was called stupid opening for beginners that really sucks no one would be interested.

The strategy behind this opening is called matrix chess. As previously explained (to the best of my ability), matrix chess follows a set of 20 rules that guide the player's moves. In addition to these rules, it is also about the geometric potential of each piece and the specific patterns that pieces combined geometries create.

Top 3 Rules:

1. Play for the earliest possible mate

2. Collect free material

3. Attack the weak square (the weak square being f7 on black side and f2 on white side)

The most important element to playing succesful matrix chess is to play a really weak opponent.  The reason for that is that this opening sucks.  With best play white is only slightly worse after 6 or 7 moves.

Would you be interested in learning an opening called:

"weak-ass opening where white is struggeling for equality after 6 moves?"

If you are interested, Matrix chess is for you.

I will admit there are some merits to Matrix chess. I have played Mr. Parham and his students. Qh5 gives away White's initial advantage too easily. It seems a nice way to learn chess. After 1300-1400 it seems like a terrible system. Also, playing Qh5 no matter what is terrible. Bernard played Qh5 against me when I played sicilian and I wiped the floor with him(it is worth noting I don't know the first thing about sicilian). Qh5 is a fun swindle that requires quite a bit of work and skill to play correctly. You need to know basically every line. If you are that good or want to put that much time into a hobby, just play normal chess!

The strategy is to hope Black plays naturally or screws up. It is basically hit and run tactics. You can't recover if your attack fails.

I feel, that the problem with qh5 isn't that is better or worse at the mid level than other openings, but that a move that is safe in one line of it, is terrible in another. It can be very dangerous to play if you are not very familiar with it. In the end it is hard to find a great place to put the queen, without losing too much in terms of tempo. I have spent maybe about a year playing it exclusively and studying it off and on. I even have played it in a over the board tourney. (going 1-1 with it, beating a person rated around 1400 with it, while not amazing, about my level anyways playing any opening) I messed around with it playing people rated significantly better than me, and they wound up beating me, but I believe they would have beat me with whatever opening I played too, so im not sure if it was the opening or just me :) but my final take on this opening is that it is just too dangerous, and not worth the risk. however it is still quite fun on blitz chess. 

I'll play you with it just for fun anytime, preferably a blitz game.