Actually, Nakamura said he had that game one and made an error in the midgame, so it had nothing to do with the opening. And yes, pfren did claim this was "shit". And you're saying a suprise factor means it's shitty? That's a good thing, as I already said.
parham attack
Sort:
Actually, you said that it's a suprise factor becaue its shitty, and nakamura released a statement syaing he blundered.
Having seen that game (it's also annotated in Chessbase Magazine!) I saw that:
- Mitkov handled the opening a tad too cautiously, yet he achieved a very good game (equal, or a tad better for Black). In the middlegame Naka achieved some advantage after very clever knight manouvering, but trying to win he played a couple of serious inaccuracies, and in the end he was down a pawn for nothing- factly, Mitkov agreed to draw only because he was short on time.
I lost once as Black in just 13 moves following 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.a3, which is certainly enough "shit", and equally certainly better shit than Naka's 2.Qh5. But this was not because of the opening, but simply because I played nonsense.
Yes, opening moves can't be judged from the result either. They're strong or weak by their own merit.
I think Qh5 is actually less shit, cuz it at least has a purpose. 3 a3 just seems like skipping a turn.
May 5, 2012
0
#87
The KG is much better than this crap, and saying it hangs a pawn does nothing to shoot it down, KASPAROV Lost convincingly enough to put the KG in a level of its own, it was the most popular opening from arround 1600 to the mid 1800's and there is no refutation, FISCHER NEVER BELIEVED THIS, he just chose to write the article to scare people off, and plus some of the moves in his analysis have been shown to be worse for white than most rational people would play. SPASSKY BEAT FISCHER with it.
If that constitutes crap, and makes it completely unsound, then what the hell makes you think that a GM who would loose to KASPAROV (NAKA) and who always looses to CARLSEN (who has played the KG before) strengthens the Parham, when I can follow in the footsteps of veritable legends, which NAKA will NEVER become. also The player who beat KASPY was SHORT.
anyway with that I rest my argument in favor of the KG
Hardly so. 2.Qh5 donates a couple of tempos to Black for nothing, while 3.a3 has some poison, which was apparent the stupid way I played: 3...d5?! 4.ed5 Nxd5 5.Qh5! (now THIS Qh5 is a good move!) and compared to the Scotch 4...Qh4 variation, the move a3 deprives Black of the natural sortie Nd5-b4.
Still, Black is equal, but I went on playing nonsense, and lost briefly.
The_Gavinator wrote:
I think Qh5 is actually less shit, cuz it at least has a purpose. 3 a3 just seems like skipping a turn.
Well that's the point isn't it? Qh5 then Qf3 a move or two later... technically speaking this is the definition of skipping a turn... that's what losing a tempo is.
Jetfigher, you're not one of the best players of all time. Fischer said this sucks, and obviously if you are rated 1300 you don't do too well with it either. I don't see you following in Fischer's footsteps...
How would you know? You've never played it :p
no, the parham lol
In math, yes. there is one way to do things, and that's the correct way. Chess is completely different, with infinite possibilities of strategy, positions, movements, etc...
But if I want to find 2+2, there is one way to do that. If I want to checkmate someone in 10 moves, there are nearly infinite ways to do that. That's the major difference, IMs and PHDs are both knowledgeable, but chess and math are different beasts. Btw, I'm tired of wrecking people's threads, see the new one I made.
May 5, 2012
0
#95
Gavinator do I need Batgirl to show you all of the Games FISCHER played it, he only said it sucked cause he lost to a soviet player who played it against him. He also was a loon and plus having an undefeated record with it as white is better than your example NAKA who has a shit record with it
May 5, 2012
0
#96
jason17 wrote:
edboardman1 wrote:
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.
did you know that 44% of statistics are made up, including yours?
Did you know that 90% percent of people believe what they read? I know its true, because I read it in a book somewhere.
May 5, 2012
0
#97
joeydvivre wrote:
If you want to go about proving the Riemann Conjecture there are untold approaches....
I didn't know that you were at the 2+2 stage in your math. About the same as your chess, huh?
isn't 2+2 fish
I know its actualy 4 but I couldn't resist the chance to do that
Oh and the answer for serious people is right under that answer.
By the way how do you figure out the volume of a hemisphere
V=4/3 pir squared all over 2
answer is again above for serious folks
Jetfighter, that's gonna be half the area of a sphere, so .5x(4/3)xr^3, or something like that. Taking Geometry?
May 6, 2012
0
#99
opos see I get messed up a bit I wrote squared its cubed, actually algebra II
That Naka played the move doesn't make it better or worse than what it is. That a GM can draw a GM with a less than best opening move doesn't validate the move either.
Or in other words, just because it's not losing, doesn't make it good. There are GMs like Gashimov who took up playing the Benoni against top players, which isn't popular at high levels (don't know if he still does). Sometimes GMs pick up dubious (to them) openings. But his peers don't seem to agree, as I'm not aware of any other top player willing to use it like that.
If Naka played it more than a few times, maybe we could talk, but it seems he doesn't believe in it either. And certainly no other top players use Qh5. Like I said before, there's no reason to give up a tempo. g6 isn't bad for black's position, but moving the queen twice is.