# parham attack

you're an 1886, that's like 1700USCF, you're not a chess master, keep dreaming.

Lol this sites ratings are inflated by like 150 points, so 1726. And Bernard Parham would crush you.

We were actually just discussing how Bernard Parham became a chess master by exclusively playing 2. Qh5

I don't think I'm better then chess masters, neither should you :P

Idk, I thought they were both the same system.

no the United States has some quirks

nope just proved it was a razor of an opening.

i know parham is a chessmaster, im one of his students who uses matrix to win

how does it work exactly

Yes, I am interested in this too. I know he uses a version of vector analysis, which involves the queen and supporting pieces. Jetfighter, I recall you saying you're in algebra II, so I doubt you know vectors. They are essentialy a way of plotting line segments, you learn about them in trig. Apart from that, I don't know much about it.

Well vectors themselves are pretty simple, maybe he tried to incorporate them in a more sophisticated way, with linear algebra or something (a class I haven't had, so I don't know).  But it (the class) uses a lot of vectors.

the matrix pattern involves queen and knight together, plus looking at the two and from square of what just moved

I think he was taking college level physics. Eboard, is there a specific formula, is it judgementally based, is there anywhere I can get a detailed description?

So he just wanted it to sound fancy because he happens to have a background in mathematics?  heh.

The_Gavinator wrote:

I think he was taking college level physics. Eboard, is there a specific formula, is it judgementally based, is there anywhere I can get a detailed description?

I don't think physics would help much with coming up with a math based method of playing chess.  He'd have to be into pure mathematics for something that original.

The_Gavinator wrote:

Yes, I am interested in this too. I know he uses a version of vector analysis, which involves the queen and supporting pieces. Jetfighter, I recall you saying you're in algebra II, so I doubt you know vectors. They are essentialy a way of plotting line segments, you learn about them in trig. Apart from that, I don't know much about it.

I took Physics last year, and other than the stuff about Newton, all I remember are vectors.

Yeah physics would not be of much help.  I mean vectors are a nice way to organize physical forces and their netforce on something.  Matrices might be useful I guess when it comes to organizing grids, I don't know how effective it is in chess.  I rarely ever used matrices for anything other than "Adventures with Excel".

To be honest, I think that thinking of a formula using a geometric model describing the piece's freedom of movement would be far more efficient and useful in a game setting.

I'm not sure, it obviously worked for him however.

The_Gavinator wrote:

I'm not sure, it obviously worked for him however.

Well at least we know it's not horrible.  But you can't argue for its merits this way because:

One, you can't know how much he uses it in his games, only that he promotes it (unless you get very clear about matrix chess and go over his games).

Two, assuming he only uses his system during his games, you can't know how good he would have been if he had used a traditional method.

Third, there are many players better than him, so even if this maximized his personal ability, you can't assume it will work for you, or discount the traditional methods that have made the current top 10 who they are.

its not college level physics, just draw the pattern of a queen, then draw the diamond shape of the knight, if a 6yr old understands, its not that hard. no magic fotmula involved at all, were was the piece was at to were it is know