FREE - In Google Play
FREE - in Win Phone Store
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.
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.
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
That's funny you'd say that since he is a chess master...
That just sounds like some geometric system.
he WAS a chess master over 20 years ago now he is lucky to hold 2000 due to a rating floor. Looking at his tournament history he drops games to class players on a consistant basis. To prove his theory it needs results in tournament play seems to have failed on that. I assume your a student of his and he does seem to have strong personality and appeals to those that like things differet for the sake of being different.
His best FIDE rating was some 1860, so no, he shouldn't be called "a Master". This rating is low even for candidate master level players.
I have found a game of his in Chessbase which started (Parham was white) 1.e4 d5 2.e5 Bf5 3.g4. I'd rather expect a patzer playing like that, not a "master".
matrix isnt just Qh5, if it was then jean dean, emeory Tate wouldnt become masters.
I understand it involves forming a vector with the queen and a supporting piece?
there is nothing wrong with e4 d5 e5 bf5 g4 for NM level.
Oh no, nothing wrong. It just shows he does not understand chess.
2.e5 is just suspect, and 3.g4 is just silly. Other than that, yeah, it's NM level chess.
what are the moves for this strategy?
Huh? The game Zatonskih- Kats is totally irrelevant. It was a Catalan Ukrainian variation (by transposition), where Black was simply not booked (9...b6 is known to give Black a good game).
Maybe you are referring to some other game?
Yes, he does have a plan: weakening his kingside for nothing. Great plan, really.
it weakens his kingside but at least he can castle q side or something.
I assumed that was the only point of the Parham.
it amazes me to see more people downgrade someone who one they havent played, but good note to see someone leave a comment about playing parham and losing to but learned from it, if it weakens the king side prove your theory
Currently my FIDE rating is just 515 points higher than mr. Parham's, and I have teached a few Grandmasters how to play the game.
Do I have to prove anything at all?
And besides that, the comment went on the comment about another stupid opening idea (the g4 move suggested), not the Parham, which does not weaken the kingside, but turns white to Black as early as move two.
This is sad. Someone needs to just quit chess.