FREE - In Google Play
FREE - in Win Phone Store
Well, he's a pretty cocky player :) I wonder who he played it against. We all know how what's-his-name played 1...a6 against the then world champ Karpov (at a time, IIRC, that karpov had an unbeaten streak going). But that doesn't mean 1...a6 is theoretically best.
And like I said before, I don't think it's as bad as some other openings people try to play. Heck I frequent some gambit lines all the time online that I know are bad... because they're trapy and I count on my opponent screwing up.
But if I really wanted to win, and was against a peer/someone better than me, I don't think I'd be doing myself any favors by playing a slightly inferior move so early. At my level the game won't be decided in the opening by any means, but I'd try to make the most of my moves. I think the idea of tempo is valid, and Qh5 seems to waste a tempo and count on poor defensive play by my opponent.
I don't see how Qh5 wastes a tempo, and I, also Nakamura, don't believe this is an inferior move. But also, a6 seems like a move you would play just for attention. This actually makes sense. Finally, like you said, you play gambits to be aggressive, win if your opponent messes up, lose if they play solid. This is similar but you don't have to forfeit any material, which is why I love it.
Because you have to move the queen twice, that's why I mention tempo.
Naka was right that it has potential, in that it's not a losing move. I very much doubt he meant potential as a strong opening like other mainline and mainstream openings are.
And I don't care who played it by the way. Moves can be judged objectively for their own merits for what they do on the board. GMs make moves fashionable, but they don't make them any stronger than what they are.
a6 isn't that bad really, black goes right into a queenside expansion and fianchettos there. It can also transpose fairly easily into "real" openings too if white isn't careful.
Naka played this shit in regular time control against FYROM grandmaster Mitkov (he drew the endgame being a pawn down), and against patzers. He also played 1.e4 c5 2.Qh5 in regular time control against the Ukrainian super-GM Volokitin, and lost.
but a6 isn't very good either, it kind of is like "skipping" a move. And you move the queen twice, but they have to do g6 to do that. The knight they have on f6 is tricky business if black isn't careful...
No, I don't think a6 is very good. Like you said something to play to get attention or make your opponent furious hehe :) But just like Qh5 it certainly isn't losing.
There some hippo game where the annotations say this. I wonder if the game is famous, or if I just came across it one day (maybe someone knows it). But supposedly the IM facing it became mad in the late middlegame that his position wasn't winning against this opening, so he sacrifices a few pieces for dubious compensation and ended up losing.
pfren, I agree that this is dumb against the sicilian, because e6 puts it out.
However, to disagree with joeydvivre, Nakamura drew with a GM, if the opening was as "shitty" as you claim, then a GM should have EASILY crushed Nakamura with it. Also, I am not a GM, neither are any of you, so we're not going to have perfect play, so that doesn't really matter.
Tal would play those simuls against patzers, not freaking GM's, so of course he would win dipshit. And as you said, Tal called h4 a bad opening, I agree, Nakamura called 2. Qh5 a good opening, I also agree.
I'm pretty sure Nakamura knows a hell of a lot more than you do, so why don't you shut your trap, and learn about what you're talking about before you go being a dickhead to people.
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.
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 dummy, as I already said.
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.
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.
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...