when I first saw the game I thought black did ok for his rating level (+250 maybe) but for that to be an ex master I think that was weak. white had an opening edge
MATRIX CHESS
Sort:
Amanultra wrote:
In fact you should notify chess . Com staff about this. It is illegal especially in a rated game and we have a written confession
I'm not sure if that's necessary. I'm considering it. I want them to at least re-adjust the ratings if possible.
And what was the time control cause if it was any shorter then he would not have time to use his formulas. Rather he would have to use a thing called intuition which only comes from understanding of the positions and ideas that all of the great players have advocated. Not some miracle blue pill.
jarkov wrote:
when I first saw the game I thought black did ok for his rating level (+250 maybe) but for that to be an ex master I think that was weak. white had an opening edge
That's the thing. Matrix chess is flawed and will often give the opponent an opening edge.
Amanultra wrote:
And what was the time control cause if it was any shorter then he would not have time to use his formulas. Rather he would have to use a thing called intuition which only comes from understanding of the positions and ideas that all of the great players have advocated. Not some miracle blue pill.
It was a ten minute game. He requested 15 or 20 minute, but I don't like staring at a computer screen for so long.
He is definetly playing chess like the rest of us here but full of mistakes. He is probably a skitzo. In the opening he practically gave white a winning position. The early Bc5 is a mistake, 10Bg4 was a losing blunder. I really don't see where blacks play is going in the opening. Definetly contact the staff and tell them about the incedent and don't take the red pill.
I am sorry for the confusion. Contact chess.com if you would like but it sounds like hurt egos and scared players to me. I never play blitz, Drizzt, and I couldn't care less about ratings. So far its Matrix chess 2 classical chess 0… Anybody else in for a whooping?
I guarantee that if you played the exact game up to move 11 and then played f3 instead of check you would still lose.
These are typical responses from classical players. No matter how many times or why you lose to Matrix chess, you will always be cynics.
Matrix chess must be worthless however, 2100 views and 150 comments in a little over 2 days…
People slow down to watch car wrecks too -- I don't think you can hold a thread's popularity up as validation of the ideas put forth in it.
TheGrobe wrote:
People slow down to watch car wrecks too -- I don't think you can hold a thread's popularity up as validation of the ideas put forth in it.
This thread is only the tip of the iceburg.
Funny, that's all they saw on the Titanic too.
exactly!
Ok tngerb, I look forward to watching that game. And when you loose what will your excuse be?
I would really like to see him defend against the matrix gambit.
Do you understand that he became a national master playing Matrix chess?
tngerb wrote:
If I lose it's because he's still a national master, not because I'm in the matrix..
lol, "you think that's chess you're playing?"
I met Parham many years ago. he coached our middle school club briefly. I am NOT a master level player so I really can't talk much- however, parham gambit/martx gambit/parham attack (immediate development of the queen) is a very good way to loose against good players. Statistially, it tends to "work" against weaker players. The majority of players are weaker players so perhaps there is some validity advocating the usage of the attack (especially amongst younger players). I woudn't use it against anybody rated higher than myslef. I think it is a bad choice. Thats my take on it. Parham woud whomp on me(and most people) because hes a dag-gone good player - even if the matrix system is kooky
tngerb wrote:
Oh wow. So he developed the matrix system before he learned how to play? Incredible.........................
What are you talking about? He developed it as he learned. Between his mathematical background and all the observation/experience he accumulated he was able to form a winning system. Then he learned the necessary knowledge to be able to explain why he was winning and thus, Matrix chess was born.
He didn't just run on down to the nearest book store and buy a bunch of books loaded with thousands of games to memorize. He used his practical experience and knowledge of more complex mathematical principles to devise a method that, going against classical principles, plays for the earliest possible check-mate.
SavageLotus wrote:
I met Parham many years ago. he coached our middle school club briefly. I am NOT a master level player so I really can't talk much- however, parham gambit/martx gambit/parham attack (immediate development of the queen) is a very good way to loose against good players. Statistially, it tends to "work" against weaker players. The majority of players are weaker players so perhaps there is some validity advocating the usage of the attack (especially amongst younger players). I woudn't use it against anybody rated higher than myslef. I think it is a bad choice. Thats my take on it. Parham woud whomp on me(and most people) because hes a dag-gone good player - even if the matrix system is kooky
Thanks Lotus. You know what I like about your post? First, you have actual experience and knowledge on Matrix chess to contribute. Second, you stated that you are not a master, as none of us who have posted so far are. Out of 160 posts only you and I have stated our cridencials. Yet so many are posting like they know everything.
I think you're point is valid to an extent. One of the appealing things is that when using Matrix chess principles against most players, without much experience, you will dominate. It's the practical experience that takes Matrix chess to the next level in terms of competing vs higher levels.
Just today I played vs a 1247 (keep in mind im a 1151 at this point) and I beat him in 4 moves... If you don't play for the earlier possible checkmate you will never get it.
At my first tournament this past December (with 1 month experience) I beat someone in 7 moves... again, if I wasn't playing for it I would have never gotten it.
Windingshu wrote:
SavageLotus wrote:
I met Parham many years ago. he coached our middle school club briefly. I am NOT a master level player so I really can't talk much- however, parham gambit/martx gambit/parham attack (immediate development of the queen) is a very good way to loose against good players. Statistially, it tends to "work" against weaker players. The majority of players are weaker players so perhaps there is some validity advocating the usage of the attack (especially amongst younger players). I woudn't use it against anybody rated higher than myslef. I think it is a bad choice. Thats my take on it. Parham woud whomp on me(and most people) because hes a dag-gone good player - even if the matrix system is kooky
Thanks Lotus. You know what I like about your post? First, you have actual experience and knowledge on Matrix chess to contribute. Second, you stated that you are not a master, as none of us who have posted so far are. Out of 160 posts only you and I have stated our cridencials. Yet so many are posting like they know everything.
I think you're point is valid to an extent. One of the appealing things is that when using Matrix chess principles against most players, without much experience, you will dominate. It's the practical experience that takes Matrix chess to the next level in terms of competing vs higher levels.
Just today I played vs a 1247 (keep in mind im a 1151 at this point) and I beat him in 4 moves... If you don't play for the earlier possible checkmate you will never get it.
At my first tournament this past December (with 1 month experience) I beat someone in 7 moves... again, if I wasn't playing for it I would have never gotten it.
I would say 99 percent of chess players have some experience with Matrix/4 move checkmate/scholars mate (whatever its called) because its what people naturally gravitate to when they start playing.(even me when I was taught at 8, it gave me some quick wins) therefore if someone doesnt know Matrix from experience then odds are they are a very strong player
That's actually what I said right after the game. I just thought I could take on f7 safely. I erred in my calculations. You are correct.