parham attack

I would never use a computer to play my games. you are just to scared to accept an honest challange to a person who wants to see his play do better than the person who claims its aweful, why would I let some piece of silicon do that for me.

Please, leave me alone. I know that the second I accept I'm going to get engined, so stop going on about it. I'm not scared of you, just of rybka, so I'm not going to go get beat by rybka playing the King's Gambit, and having you say the king's gambit is unbeatable. Good Day to you sir.

I say Qe7 because I want to push d5 on d6 and take the center.

but after your move it makes sence

I think I typed it confusingly, Qe7 has a purpose, but your moves make more sence

I don't know the specifics of it (other than the early queen move) but doesn't it just immediately yield equality?  What I mean is, it's not as bad as say, the latvian

Damn guys, Nakamura is an idiot. He's only ranked 7th in the world, I guess that means there's 6 people in the entire world who play chess and aren't idiotic...

Well, again I'm not sure what the move order calls for.  But for example if the light square bishop has moved, then whenever the queen is kicked from h5 it could conceivably go back to e2 and it wouldn't be a disaster or anything.

But just giving up a tempo like that probably isn't part of the idea of the system/attack or whatever it is.  So it might give black a small advantage against good play.

Wafflemaster, the queen would go back to f3 if necessary, other squares work too.

We all know he played this as a precocious kid, he's certainly dropped it since.  But even since then his opening choice has often said "I can get away with this because I think I can outplay you"  I recall some dutch games he lost spectacularly against the super-strong Kramnik

He's also said (about 2 years ago) that he doesn't like to specialize in an opening, he just wants to get to the point where he and his opponent are on their own, because, in his own words, he feels like he can play better chess than his opponent once the theory is gone.

He actually used the Parham after he had became a US Champion, so it obviously wasn't as a kid. Also, he stated he still believed 2. Qh5 had potential.

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.

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 GM's, so of course he would win. 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 lot more than you do, so why don't you learn about what you're talking about.

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, as I already said.

Actually, you said that it's a suprise factor becaue its shitty, and nakamura released a statement syaing he blundered.

Yes, opening moves can't be judged from the result either.  They're strong or weak by their own merit.