dctpianist, I have had that same question this whole time. And it would seem that the lower their rating the more they have to say.
MATRIX CHESS
Sort:
Actually, his USCF rating is only 2008 according to the most recent ratings online. He hasn't been 2200+ for around 15 years according to the chart. He is a strong tactical player, and his system (not specifically the opening) is designed to teach others his somewhat "unique" method of looking at the tactical side of chess. Whether it's the BEST method for teaching chess to beginners is easily up for debate. (Seeing as how the system seems to only be focused on the tactical side of chess as opposed to a more comprehensive look at both tactics and strategy.) I posted a few games where the early tactical shots weren't present with the 2.Qh5 opening and he eventually got outplayed by his opponent. His quick rating is 1900 (if I recall) so he should have little trouble crushing most of the people on this site in a blitz game, regardless of system.
And no, Windingshu isn't a troll, even if he made a few off-handed remarks that may look that way, though. He's dead set on his opinion, just as many of us are set in our opinion that the opening is easily refutable today, and that Parham's system (while it works great for the keen mathmatical mind that devised the system) may not be the best option for most of us.
Well, it seems to me that there is attention-seeking going on here. Let's put aside the merits of 2. Qh5 for a moment, but it's not like Parham invented this opening is it ? It has been around for centuries, and we have all played against it a few times. Yet this is now known as "Parham Attack" while players like Capablanca don't have an opening named after them. Mr. Parham is apparently not satisfied with this and wants more than just an opening named after him, he wants to be remembered as someone who solved chess. Gotta draw the line somewhere. Yeah sure 2000 USCF is not a weak player, but it is not a rating indicative of a chess genius either. I know quite a few people with higher ratings who don't claim to have solved the game.
Atos, fact of the matter is that he achieved his highest rating using a system deemed "terrible" by the majority of chess players. Matrix chess has merit and is something to be studied. As stated many many times, Matrix chess is much more than 2.Qh5. That is just 1 of the openings used to maximize Matrix chess' potential.
It's never too late.
Windingshu wrote:
Atos, fact of the matter is that he achieved his highest rating using a system deemed "terrible" by the majority of chess players. Matrix chess has merit and is something to be studied.
So, his rating could actually have been higher if he wasn't trying to apply his theories ? That seems quite possible, and it doesn't speak well for the theories.
Okay, could you now explain why you think 'matrix chess' has merit and why it is something to be studied. Maybe we could start with what it is in the first place, otherwise the discussion is not going to be very productive.
Atos wrote:
Windingshu wrote:
Atos, fact of the matter is that he achieved his highest rating using a system deemed "terrible" by the majority of chess players. Matrix chess has merit and is something to be studied.
So, his rating could actually have been higher if he wasn't trying to apply his theories ? That seems quite possible, and it doesn't speak well for the theories.
Okay, could you now explain why you think 'matrix chess' has merit and why it is something to be studied. Maybe we could start with what it is in the first place, otherwise the discussion is not going to be very productive.
Yes I would be happy to have a productive conversation as to what Matrix chess is. I would say the the first 3 or 4 pages of this post are where I answered most initial questions on Matrix chess. So you should read those and then let me know addition questions you have or questions stemming off those answers.
As much as some of you hate me, please wish me luck on this damn art history test!
Um, I don't hate you, I did get a little upset by your 'scared' stuff but otherwise I have nothing against you. Good luck with that test there.
But I don't think that you have explained what matrix chess is beyond that it is a method of analyzing information and solving problems, something that chess players have always been doing.
jarkov wrote:
darn, looks like they only give a sample of the video now. the full half hour version shows a crushing line that could be considered a refution
Windingshu wrote:
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…
Matrix chess 2...!?!
How about "Master's 2, Non-masters 0"
Really? You are guaranteeing it? You can't guarantee that Kasparov will beat dog. You have no way of guaranteeing any outcome of any game.
And I haven't read many of the new posts, but I should say, staff was contacted, the game's rating adjustments are being reversed, and it's alright. No harm done.
Feb 18, 2010
0
#173
I think this is a put-on. How long can he keep this thread going?
Let's all challenge Windingshu to a Matrix game.
200th post!
Feb 18, 2010
0
#175
In the chess.com database it's listed under C20, "King Pawn Game, Wayward Queen Attack."
Windingshu, I'll set up the challenge and I'll play black. Are you up for it?
you are right DrizztD, Masters 2 non-masters 0. But that master acheived everything with Martix chess.
If that is going to be the response every time Mr. Parham plays someone than what is the point?
Feb 18, 2010
0
#177
Okay Windingshu. The challenge is in: Showdown at the Matrix Corral.
I'm ready to face the fury of the Wayward Queen Attack!
Frequent_flyer wrote:
Okay Windingshu. The challenge is in: Showdown at the Matrix Corral.
I'm ready to face the fury of the Wayward Queen Attack!
Is it me you are looking to play or Mr. Parham? To get the full effect of Matrix chess I would prefer you play Mr. Parham. I have been studying it for 3 months and still frequently make the typical beginner mistakes.
I suppose you really only have 1 choice however, to play me. See, I am now aware that it is illegal for me to have someone else play under my name. I approached Mr. Parham about starting an account but he said he is content with playing the vast challengers he sees everyday.
I will be happy to play you. It should make for a good learning experience for both of us. Hopefully I can demonstrate some principles I've learned about Matrix chess.
Windingshu wrote:
Frequent_flyer wrote:
In the chess.com database it's listed under C20, "King Pawn Game, Wayward Queen Attack."
Windingshu, I'll set up the challenge and I'll play black. Are you up for it?
you are right DrizztD, Masters 2 non-masters 0. But that master acheived everything with Martix chess.
If that is going to be the response every time Mr. Parham plays someone than what is the point?
Please don't go back there. We are not interested in Mr. Parham's personal strength as a player, we are discussing his ideas about chess. If these ideas are a liability to his own play that is his problem. On the other hand, that a master can beat some amateurs shouldn't be surprizing or a big deal. It's only in games between players of roughly equal strength that ideas can be tested. Now Mr. Parham hasn't exactly wiped out other masters with his opening or his ideas. Then again, it may be that the ideas have validity even so, but it's a bit difficult to tell when they are not explained in any articulate manner. Please think about what you want to say and don't waste time.
ok, Im done here. nothing much else to say. Parham gets a lot of publicity from this but thats it. even in his win against a lower rated player black equalized easily. thats what it has to come down to. not the result, but isolating the opening. Naka played it as a change of pace and looked at the opening and found that the surprise factor wasnt enough conpensation for him allowing black to equalize.
lets talk about some real openings now.
<!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:"Cambria Math"; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:1; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-format:other; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:0 0 0 0 0 0;} @font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:swiss; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1073750139 0 0 159 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; margin-top:0in; margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:10.0pt; margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} .MsoPapDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; margin-bottom:10.0pt; line-height:115%;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->
While I do agree that Qh5 is unsuitable for upper level play as proven by plenty of masters and others who have done thousands of hours of research testing out positions, I do have one little nagging question born out of idle curiosity. Out of all the people here who have disparaged Mr. Parham's to play based on his paltry rating of a mere 2200, how many of you are rated near that or higher?