parham attack

many people do not use matrix chess so to average player it becomes like magic pull stuff out of no where, yet as a matrix player my self and been studing the masters games, it is not magic at all, its chess. when a 2500 + uses this attack you better wake up, because he wouldnt use something unsound and beating people with it as will.

Nakamura used this and it did not turn out to be very strong.  The games he used it in were not won by the opening.

Nakamura only played this once in a serious tournament game, that he lost. He did however play it in blitz, now that he's serious about becomming a top ten player though, he has given it up.

Besides, there are no 2500+ that plays by the matrix system, some may use the Wayward queen attack as a surprise weapon, but no one plays it by the stupid matrix guidelines.

i guess you kids dont know that nakamura has played several games that are not yet published using such an attack and winning. So if you want to agree with wall, and others and you see this coming to you by a kid, or even an adult, dont cry to me about losing the game. 

He has played it in blitz and one serious tournament game, he hasn't played it in any more serious tournament games, seeing as how he's rather closely followed (he's somewhat of a big deal you know, being from USA and all), we would know if he had.

Let's not forget that Nakamura does not base his chess understanding on matrix chess, which should be the most important point, seing as how Matrix chess is more than the wayward queen.

I have faced this opening five times and won all five.  Generally when the opening volley does not work, the other player does not play the rest of the game particularly well.  A one trick phoney!

well so far all i see is a bunch of B players post, no master post, which tells me that what and who played such opening againsted you two, was either not really a parham student or maybe parham was just playing with you to get your style down, masters do such things to use under rated players. i know this as fact.  

In my opinion, adhering to Tarkatower's adage, "As long as it's dubious, it's playable."

My guess is that the Parham isn't refuted, but allows black to equalize quite easily, if not obtain a slight edge. Similar to the Bongcloud attack (1.e4 e5 2.Ke2?!) with correct play from both sides. If black play's accurately, White will eventually stand worse.

However, being the patzer that I am, I wouldn't equalize because half of the time my play is inaccurate.

I think the Parham may be a little better than the Bongcloud, but that is about all that could be said for it. Both basically show that the White could possibly just get away with some bad opening moves if he follows up very accurately, but it's not clear why anyone would want to do this.

Perhaps they would play it either for fun or to gain a minute or two on the clock. Due to Nakamura inciting some interest in the Parham, the Bongcloud is probably better if one wants to do the latter.

I've played Bernard Parham personally, and he played this against me, and crushed me rather easily. I was also -maybe- 1200 USCF at the time. He played this against a ~1850 player too, while I watched. The 1850 got a winning position, and blundered the loss, won the next game, and got to a drawn position and blundered the loss.

2. Qh5 is not refuted, but it's not good either. The biggest problem with matrix chess is that it assigns different values to pieces, which may be true in the middlegame when you're going for checkmate, but will leave you in hopelessly lost endgames if your opponent gets there using the traditional piece values to guide his play. 

Bernard could get away with this versus all of us because his tactical vision was simply better (worlds better) than ours, and I couldn't survive the tactics, but the class B player who could survive (most of) the tactics, could pull out a win.

I only lose to 2. Qh5 against one player: Bernard Parham and those games get close(most likely he doesn't really put as much effort into it as I do). All others are just dominated. Sure it is fun just to mess around with and it has it few merits, but I don't think it should be taken as seriously as Ruy Lopez. I am roughly 1450, just for reference.

I have a copy of MCO-15, but this opening is not included.  I've heard that there are some lines for this opening in a previous version of MCO.  Can anyone verify this? 

If 2.Qh5 refutes 1...e5, then 1...g6 refutes 1.e4!

 Dude, you sound like you swallowed your bong.

Nakamura used to play all kinds of goofy stuff as surprise openings.  I do remember reading an interview with him after his big win at Tatta Steel that he had become more serious about his chess and decided to eliminate his use of unorthodox openings.  His new attitude has vaulted him into the top 10 world wide.  If anything his early queen sortees and Vienna Gambit stuff were holding his performance back.

see you try and find Qh5 in books and either wall , schuller, batford seem to tell the same story, its not in the book, so it must be a bad opening or theory. Yet over the board experience tells me that it works, even in here also, with a 75 to 80 % . Which i will take that over any book player, who relys on hope chess, instead of know chess. 

Try 1. e4 Nf6 2. Qh5, see how you turn out as white.

did you know that 44% of statistics are made up, including yours?

Yeah somehting like that, only it was like this when I heard it: "80% of statistics are made up, including this one".

nice try, i play , i'm no beginner move to drop the queen, try 1. e4 Nf6 2. e5 . this is matrix chess not give away chess