I don't know what is meant by "Matrix chess." It's a normal chess opening just not a very good one. I doubt that it can be used against anything too, surely Nakamura does not use it against the Alekhine Defence (1. e4 Nf6) ?
Also, after three months of playing chess, I really wouldn't dismiss others as ignorant.
Matrix Chess uses 2.Qh5 but that is not the whole of Matrix Chess. Just like in traditional chess there are rules, piece values, principles, techniques, and guidelines. Qh5 is only the beginning of the storm.
Atos, I am simply stating that others are ignorant on the subject of Matrix Chess. There is a reoccuring pattern with the facts the nah-sayers have. The information on this style of play is very limited and I am just trying to help educate the curious.
Nakamura tried 2. Qh5 in a game against Sasirikan which he lost. His explanation:
Hello everyone! After so many random comments I feel like explaining why I played 2.Qh5 and what inspired it. So here it goes... The night before I was to play GM Sasikiran in round 7, I decided to connect to the wireless internet from my room in Denmark. After talking randomly with some people Jason Doss suggested that I play 2.Qh5! Although I think Jason was only half-serious at the time I thought it was a practical opening choice and more importantly a surprise. I have analyzed this line thoroughly, and will probably play 2.Qh5 in the future...maybe in Minnesota, who knows? I think that in order for chess to be interesting in the future people need to come up with new ideas and avoid all the computer-prepared variations, which makes chess dull and unexciting as players do not have to exhibit real skill. Anyways in response to what some other Grandmasters have said; 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. Alas, due to my style I went for all or broke and lost the game. I truly believe that one only has one life to live, therefore one must enjoy this world. What does one loss mean in the scheme of life?
So, it was a 'practical opening choice' and an attempt to surprize the opponent. No mention of "Matrix chess."
Perhaps he has no experience or interest in Matrix chess, I am not him and I don't claim to know a lot about him. What I do know is that he has consulted with the creator of Matrix chess, which means he is more interested in the theories that make 2.Qh5 a successful move than just blatently opening with it.
Windingshu I will play you in an unrated and can you please explain to me how your moves correspond to this "matrix strategy"
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.
i have challenged you.
I am not even sure what Matrix Chess is, so I will be watching with great interest.
I am not even sure what Matrix Chess is, so I will be watching with great interest.
I am glad. And any questions that it brings up for you I will be happy to answer.
This is rich. I would love to say that this is one of the most interesting forums topics I've seen in a while. I laugh every time I read through the new posts.
I believe that you complained about us repeating "shallow facts" over and over. I'm sure this has some credibility, but these are things you can't deny:
1. Playing 2. Qh5 is a rubbish move, and the use of it is utterly laughable. To play this with the hopes of getting the "quickest possible checkmate" is nonsense, and is utterly hilarious. How are you going to get a quick checkmate when you are wasting your time protecting your queen?
2. To "index" your opponents moves is completely stupid. I make moves because I think they are good, not because of how they coincide on an 8 x 8 plane. It's foolish to think that one could win a game simply by applying a lifeless formula to where real human intelligence is required.
3. Lastly, the way that the piece values are determined is hilarious. It's doesn't statistically hold any credibility. Here is an example of the piece values being determined mathematically:
http://danheisman.home.comcast.net/~danheisman/Articles/evaluation_of_material_imbalance.htm
This theory is complete rubbish, and to follow this thread is incredibly entertaining.
Just for the record, I have nothing against you, or the man who created the theory. I just find this theory to be complete trash.
Windingshu I will play you in an unrated and can you please explain to me how your moves correspond to this "matrix strategy"
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.
Well whatever you want to say about "matrix" chess is pretty much pointless to me. I haven't done anything but look at the website I found by doing the google search you mentioned early on. I found it interesting that there were no games posted by this guy who is the proponent. I also find it interesting that the best player in the world using this approach is barely a national master. That doesn't speak well for the system.
Quoting you: "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."
I think think quote shows your hidden adgenda. Do you feel that you or your circle have wasted their "bankrole" or "time" learning? For me and most of the friends I've had over my lifetime playing/studying chess (I'm in my 40's and my parents taught me to play when I was 6) has been nothing but a fun pastime occasionally boardering on obsession. That you don't feel the "need" to spend time or resources is your problem/issue; not mine or anyone I know. And yes I have often frequented real live chess clubs.
I don't begrudge you taking your own or even unorthadox approach to the game, we each take our own journey whether we mean to or not as no two people learn/process information the same way. What I do have an issue with is when people advocate "made easy" or "new and improved" methods of doing things when they first don't really understand what it is that they're trying to improve upon. That is clearly the case with you, for whatever your reason you think you've found an easier or more effective method. I say go for it. Come back in a few months or a year and let's see how much higher your rating is.
Also, let's see if you matrix method allows you how to learn the first of what I take to be one of the most important lessons for a player who hopes to move out of the ranks of the beginner. That is, "how to transform one type of advantage (which may be difficult to translate to victory) into another type which may be easier to translate to victory. From my brief reading of matrix approach I think this might be a difficult lesson and it might explain why there aren't any truely strong players using it.
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.
And, no offense intended but I fail to see how a player with pratically no real chess skill (I'm going by both your rating and your self effacing commetns) could really tell if there is "noticeable difference" between a true matrix player and/or an imitator. Without a truely deeper understanding of the game..even to the "intermediate" level how could you really tell?
Matrix Chess uses 2.Qh5 but that is not the whole of Matrix Chess. Just like in traditional chess there are rules, piece values, principles, techniques, and guidelines. Qh5 is only the beginning of the storm.
Atos, I am simply stating that others are ignorant on the subject of Matrix Chess. There is a reoccuring pattern with the facts the nah-sayers have. The information on this style of play is very limited and I am just trying to help educate the curious.
Try LEARNING and DOING before TEACHING.
I am so strongly advocating it because of Mr. Parham who has played it his whole life and swears by it. There are answers to the arguments you've made, but it seems like a waste at this point until we have played a game. Perhaps once you have lost you will take a more educated approach to the theories behind Matrix chess.
I am so strongly advocating it because of Mr. Parham who has played it his whole life and swears by it. There are answers to the arguments you've made, but it seems like a waste at this point until we have played a game. Perhaps once you have lost you will take a more educated approach to the theories behind Matrix chess.
Well I'm sorry to say that you've crossed over the line to obnoxious. For you to admit that you are only following this path because you've picked a guru named parham and then insult my level of chess "education" is obnoxious and I have no interest in playing you. At least not until you can figure out how to get your rating into the 1500's. Maybe then you'd be enough of a challenge to bother testing your "theories".
Furthermore all you're doing is blindly following somebody else's idea of how to proceed. You apparently have no basis in fact for determining whether or not his method is good, bad or indifferent. You are a meek sheep who thinks he has struck gold. If you want a method to guarantee success in your game you've picked the wrong game. Generalities, for the most part, do help a chess player become stronger (except for true beginners like you). After that you have to actually THINK and CALCULATE and UNDERSTAND if you really want to improve. However these abilities are only found in people who are actually intellectually curious and honest. Btw, I think you write very nicely for a 14 year old.
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 like to play a game with you as well, Windindshu.
Mr. Parham is a marvolous tactician. I have had the opportunity to play against him when I visited Purdue University's campus. While I am not quite sure of the fact that his system secures an advantage, it certainly brings him into positions that he is familiar with. Fifteen moves in, he may not have an advantage, but it is likely that he is far more familiar with the position than his opponent.
After you win all of these games Windindshu please post them here.
well, here is my game
( I blundered terribly and got beaten by Bernard Parham)
http://www.chess.com/livechess/game.html?id=10739422
The moves didn't seem too different, except for b5, which I failed to refute.
quote from my opponent
"it it basically the result of indexing your previous move's to and from squares. all of the pieces have a pattern, as you know, and if you combine all of those patterns and look at them for your opponents to and from squares"
Thank you Polydiatonic.
I would be happy to play anyone.
This is a site with Parham's published games
http://www.thechessdrum.net/talkingdrum/TheMatrix/index.html
and I will post a game Parham played against mprhchess earlier today.
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.
This is amusing. What is your source? See, Parham has actually consulted with Nokamura on multiple occasions...
Like I said, so far all of your comments are poorly researched and based off ignorant data (if not just by how Parham looks). I would suggest asking me questions if you are truley curious as to how this system works.