MATRIX CHESS

I guarantee that if you played the exact game up to move 11 and then played f3 instead of check you would still lose. Hahahaha. I'll take you up on that one. There is no way I would lose that. By the way, learn how to spell crdentials. And I am uscf rated 1650 but I have only been to one tournament where I tied for first. I have played Nms before I have beaten masters in one minute so I have a fair idea of what I am talking about and the position after 11.f3 is 100% lost for black. I would love for a titled player to back me up on this. And the point you made about playing against weak players is valid. That is that weak players fall for traps. DUH! Please, I would absolutely love to slaughter parnahm after 11.f3. That would make my day. And I thought he was only rated near 2000?

"therefore if someone doesnt know Matrix from experience then odds are they are a very strong player"

Not sure I quite understand that, please clarify.

Why would you ever stop playing for the earliest possible mate? I understand that a common argument is that it hinders development while your opponent is developing more and more just by attacking the queen. However, in this case the queen acts as a lightning rod that attracks attacks. And these attacks open up unique positions in the opponents structure (a position a Matrix player is very familiar with) which allows us to, seemingly retreating, subtly capitolize on the new weakness in our opponent's position.

Can someone explain how I can post a board with a few moves on it? This would be very helpful for me if I could show a few examples of what I mean.

I want you all to understand that I am still very new to Matrix chess (and especially traditional chess). I appreciate constructive input from you guys who are my peers in chess. This is why I'm not sure I understand the reason behind the countless personal attacks and hostility. I, like everyone else, am just trying to learn.

Amanultra, way to misspell credentials in an attempt to correct my spelling...

And I would also love to see you play out that game. All I ask is that you don't back down from this challenge and that you don't make excuses when you lose.

I disagree.

Do you know why we are all trying to dissuade you? Because his system is not as reliable as practical traditional chess. All of us expiramented with the four move mate and had success when playing beginners. Then we discovered that there is no forced mate in that line and we have wasted too much time. There are more solid and practical ways to play. With the system you advocate you may become a strong club player but never a really good player. Good luck hitting master with your formula.

Windingshu wrote: Amanultra, way to misspell credentials in an attempt to correct my spelling... And I would also love to see you play out that game. All I ask is that you don't back down from this challenge and that you don't make excuses when you lose. Let's play!! I would love to play an already won game!!!

I understand where you are coming from Amanultra. But did your experimentation with the Parham attack include any Matrix principle at all? As I said earlier in this post, it is clear who is a Matrix player and who is a knock-off just trying the 4 move mate.

But thanks for the wishes of good luck. I just hope they are sincere, :D.

---

because that person at a young chess age would be looking for "best possibles" instead of quick kills.

 

and the reason why not to go for the fastest kill is main reason behind why Matrix is bad-

to score the highest in chess you must calculate/find your best move, the opponents best move, and your best reply (etc) there are all sorts of tricks and traps that can cause one side the winner very fast. its just that if your opponent is throwing out best possible moves and youre only throwing out traps they dont fall into... well, then youre going to lose.

so a lot level tactical shots and tactical misses are everywhere, starting very early on in the game even. the better chess player will start to recognize these threats and battle back.

should a novice player quit playing 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 .. ? I dont think so. its a good lesson in waste of tempo and bringing the queen out too early. you get some games under your belt youll get some quick wins, and in other games see how the plan with natural play backfires. eventually youll gravitate twords other openings and ideas

It's a solid theory, jarkov, and based on the little info I have on classical chess it makes sense. However, after the opening (2. Qh5) the mate threats become more subtle and much more drawn out (is what Mr. Parham follows).

I appreciate that info tho, it gives me a little more insight into traditional chess and the overall theory.

Curious, what are your credentials?

for skill credentials my past account here was in the 1900s (corr)

I don't believe thAT in the position in the game against dritzz there was no mate threat on move 10. Simply there was a bad position.

I sent you two game challenges already. Curious that you don't want to play a game.with me! I would really love to show the people here that the position in That game is lost for black.

No immediate mate threat. But he had a plan (which panned out) for the eventual mate.

Can anyone tell me what it means when it says (turn-based) next to a users rating?

---

shoot, I'm not sure where to see game challenges. Are you trying to play a live match or online? I think you should play Mr. Parham seeing as that it is his game we are discussing.

Incredible! The greats Morphy, Capablanca, Fischer, Kasparov and so on missed the strongness of the deep strategy of trying to mate with 2.Qh5!! Carslen the new number 1 ELO of the World should be bad, he never put his queen there!

 

Windingshu the begginer and his super grand master father of his deep and strong theory will show us the truth of chess. 1..e5 is not playable anymore, I have to turn into 1..g6 or 1..Nf6.

---

1...e5 is not playable anymore?? Hmm, not so sure about that. I think you may get more opposition to that than just from me.

---

OH I'm pretty sure he's a troll.  He's just a talented troll. 

Please don't feed the troll.  But in the end trolls are still just disgusting loosers.

I'm with poly on this, he just a bloody troll - that why haven't posted on this till now - but while I'm at it, the whole effin' thread was half-baked to start with - 'moronic' don't even come close That the only crumb I'm throwin' to the troll

Ok, I'll trust your instincts that he's a troll.

ok let's really put a serious contribution here

1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 is playable. I believe Nakamura has played it in some games. Offcourse also playable is 1.a4 e5 2.b3  So what are the benefits for white to play Qh5?  Well.. he gets out an early attack. So black has te respond to it. The downside indeed is, that the attack can be repelled by develloping pieces thus black's counterattack will have more strength.

In real life I know a club player (rated 1300-1350) who always plays 1.e4    2.Qh5.  In the far far away past I played twice against him with black. Here they are:

 

 

 

You might argue that my opponent blundered. This is true. However in my belief white makes the assumption that black will blunder by playing 2.Qh5

In my opinion 2. Qh5 may work against beginners, low rated players, players with lower tactical skills then yours or even in blitz/bullet chess. However when you play opponents rated pass the 1400 mark and with a higher rating then yours at long time controls, you will find yourself in at least some trouble. 

@ Windingshu I have send you a challenge to play a game of matrixchess. Wanna test your theory?