MATRIX CHESS

@Windingshu

I'd be extremly careful with this.  Kluttz is very correct on this matter.  I do not know the man, but (and as many other players might be,) as a 19 year old whose gone through 2-3 years of calculus, although it doesn't hit that level of difficulty in understanding, it's borderline there.

In your little link there, he may appear that he is discussing basic geometry patterns that could be understood, underlying it is a complex system of analytical calculations that soar over many people's heads.

I would of found myself doubting like others too simply based on the discussion here, but however I do agree that if you want the quickest way of improvement, go learn it like everyone else.

If you really want to go through it learning it like this, it may prove to be effective only to an extent that WON'T be GM or anywhere near level.

I say this because these vector calculations and probabilities begin to dissolve with less clarity when multiple attacks, multiple methods of needing to attack or defend, take hold. When this begins to happen, the information that will be needed to take in and hold all that is so enormous that when you forget 1 part of all the calculations that were necessary, a GM's knowledge of chess principles can sustain a win where the vecter calculations could not simply because of the sheer size of data that takes place on the board.

Lets think for a second, as white, would you bring out the queen if black opened with the alakhai defense. I'm not saying blindly bring out your queen, just that the underlying principle is to bring out your queen as soon as possible. Check out Mr. Parham's games on the link I provided near the end of page 2.

WaterAlch, you are the first person with an origional (and well thought up) response to the theory of Matrix chess and for that I am thankful. One of the reasons I started this post was so I could gather questions for Mr. Parham that I didn't think of. This is one.

My hypothesis would be that calculations could only take you so far and that one would have to learn tactics and strategies. Matrix chess is a way to analyze information and find the best move. However, Mr. Parham has made no mention of some of the more complicated mathematical principles stated on the drum (i.e. vector analysis, permutations, etc.) Perhaps it is because I am not far enough with the ground work or maybe he has since altered the system.

Either way, I appreciate your constructive question and I will be sure to bring it up to him.

Parham has posted 9 games on the front page, 8 wins and 1 draw.  It tells me a lot about the guy that he didn't include any losses.

I'm quite skeptical of this. How can a mathematical representation of calculation be better than calculation itself when regular calculation is more easily understood? I couldn't find a full explanation of his system, so my question may be irrelevant - but even if it is, I'm still quite skeptical.

That is a point, an ignorant point. Mr. Parham has not released any of his games, all of his published games were either released by his opponent or were released because of the setting under which they were played.

There is very little to find on the Internet about "Matrix Chess," and I don't plan to buy some heavy volumes on such nonsense. If you can't explain what is the value in it, please leave alone.

Indexing is not making calculations, it is counting. Computers do not use the methods Matrix chess advocates.

I am comparing what I know and what Mr. Parhma knows of classical chess to that of Matrix chess. I am still a beginner and am still very ignorant to the ways of chess. However, I can tell when hostility and fear cause people to respond a certain way and it seems very apparent amidst the mess of poorly founded arguments so far.

Yes I am going from here to explain to computer scientists that there is an alternative method that is far superior to theirs, even though I understand next to nothing about it. They really should take me seriously over there. They probably never heard about the huge importance of yellow elephants in computing, and their reactions will probably show it.

Here's a couple nice refutations I found, where Parham lost pretty decisively as white.

Out of a Sicilian: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1340133

 Out of Pirc Defense (1.e4-d6, 2.Qh5) http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1411255

haha relax, no need to get upset. You probably haven't read every comment in this post, but earlier I stated that one of the reasons I started this was to gather new questions for Mr. Parham so I could learn more. Your assumptions only make you look scared and misinformed.

lingretal, thanks for the post. Those are valuable insights into Matrix chess. As are every win and loss in every system.

And what is a player who blindly accepts classical chess called? I'm not blindly accepting anything, I am learning something yes, but there is a difference.

Yeah it's like some kind of cult all right. It may even be that 2. Qh5 is playable in some lines but to turn this into some deep philosophy sounds really suspicious. ALso, please don't imply that I am "scared" again, unless you want to be.

your fear is amusing.

I FIND YOUR LACK OF FAITH DISTURBING!!!

j/k