Proper Rebuke of the Parham Attack

I think 2... Nf6 does deserve an "!".  We use "!" not for "moves that are known to be good" or "the best move in the position" but for good moves which are unexpected.  2... Nf6 drops a pawn, and it's a good move.  I'm messing with deep position analysis in Houdini now looking at this stuff... I started playing 2... Nf6 a little while ago and so far have very good results punishing kids who develop their queen too early, but I'm just playing 3 minute blitz on yahoo.  Anyway I know 2... Nf6 is the favorite of some older version of the "Crafty" chess engine, so it must be worth a look, since chess engines are notably against gambits any gambit one likes must be pretty special... Houdini, in a deep position analysis 15 plys deep from the initial position of the gambit thinks Black has something like -.30, and its line runs 3. Qf5... which is a move I have actually had played against me, so it's not so crazy to think White might play it.  Possilby my opponent who played this against me had analyzed the line with a computer and didn't want me hitting the queen over and over if s/he kept her on e5 for another move and played something dump like 3. Bc4.  Anyway I figured this is all good, but looking at this threat I looked again at the line with 2. Nc6 and figured it's obviously great for Black... after 3. Bc4 g6 4. Qf3 Nf6 4. c3 Bg7 Black is way ahead in development, has a good fianchettoed Bishop, something that takes 2 moves to do, but White was kind enough to let him/her do it with tempo hitting the Queen back as it happened, and has 3 pieces developed vs White's 1 Bishop (the early queen development doesn't count.)  What's more White's development is further hampered by the Pawn on c3 and the Queen on f3 blocking the normal development squares for the Knights.  .... I put this in this machine deep position analysis, and now I'm suprised.  Houdini says 6. d3 o-o 7. Bg5 h6 8. Bxf6 Qxf6 9. Nd2 Ne7 10. a4 Rd8 11. Qxf6 Bxf6 12. Nf3 Qg7 13. o-o a6 -.18... a tiny edge for Black... but in short, Houdini deep position analysis 15 ply doesn't think the Nc6 line with the fianchetto is as good as the Nf6 gambit.  Now I haven't looked at the Nc6 line with Qe7, maybe that's the best, and also I started the computer analysis in the Nc6 later in the line than in the Nf6 line where I started it right after the gambit, so the discrepency might just be the notorious bad understanding of the opening computers have and how early I started the analysis, but I think Houdini is pretty good, and I think there is something to 2... Nf6.  Anyway it's a good enough move to deserve an "!," as it's not only good, but suprising.  I'm convinced all of the lines discussed here, 2... Nf6, 2... Nc6 with the fianchetto, and 2... Nc6 with Qe7 are good lines because 2. Qh5 is such a terrible move to begin with... you won't win every game you play against it, maybe some stubborn kid will not learn and stick with it over and over and you can't do anything to help but keep getting a tiny advantage out of the opening and then getting outplayed, but it's clearly a bad move, and Black should get a small advantage.  Anyway main point of post, Nf6 is good, at least the best chess engines today seem to think so, and I think it deserves an exclamation point.

Alright Houdini finished crunching variations after running all night and it found a slightly better line for Black in the Fianchetto Variation after 7... h6 (instead of castling)... anyway it shows this line is not so forcing as its reputation, Black has at least two ways to play to slightly more than equality, so what's all the fuss about?  One is a nice gambit if the sharp stuff suits your style, the other is a fairly closed position line where White's threats are neutralized and Black has some options, though I think eventually Black will want to play for the f5 break or try to trade off the black Bishop like in the KID, anyway, a more closed game. 

I'm looking now at the Qe7 stuff, which contrary to some people's comments, looks worst of all... I'd call this the "cop-out" line, for simple equality and nothing more... now maybe there's more practical chances with it, though.  Houdini is still crunching so maybe I shouldn't comment too soon, but it looks like very low numbers in Black's favor, lower than the other variations, after the simple point of 1. e4 e5 2. Qh5 Nc6 3. Bc4 Qe7 4. Qd1! and now who's Queen is misplaced??  Of course I mention the practical value... what I mean is I don't believe I've met a Parham player in my life who would play 4. Qd1 for easy equality.  They're looking to attack with the "wayward" Queen.  Someone looking at the worse options for White after Qe7 leaving the Queen out in the open might be rewarded in practical games against humans.  I'm going to leave that analysis to someone else as I really like Black in the other two lines.  I will comment again when Houdini finishes analysis on this line only if the results end up different than what it's looking at now.

Another good argument why Nf6 is good is this:
Nakamura says it is the best move. Since Nakamura is one of the best players in the world and is the only expert on this opening I am guessing he is correct.

Maybe I'm wrong then conzipe.
I remembered reading that Nakamura approved Nf6 but now I am not able to find exactly where I read that.

I like Nf6, and I think it's objectively good. The general rule is that a pawn is worth three tempi I think? You get at least that. Normally when I play it it ends with me having all 4 pieces developed vs the a knight and the lone queen.

So I woke up this morning and my computer had rebooted in the night... something crashed, when Houdini was almost done looking at the Qe7 stuff.  At this point Houdini was saying it was really good for Black so I wrong, but the line seemed very artificial... 1. e4 e5 2. Qh5 Nc6 3. Bc4 Qe7 4. Qd1 Qh4 and White went on to play Nc3 and after Bc5 defend with g3 when the black Queen dropped back to f6, and it all seems very odd to me.  I don't think it's worth running again.  This sort of line is the problem with just letting computers run from too early in the opening on their own devices.  To actually do this work some strong player would need to suggest strong moves for the engine to look deeply into and see if they're any good.  The computer is looking deep and deciding between a few moves at most junctures, but there's a horizon effect on the selection of those moves, and so early, with so many options, you might end up with artificial looking stuff like this... Black is making very shallow threats and White is defending in a way that seems good at the time and ending up with weaknesses...  Houdini's mainline after Qd1 was beginning to look like Black was trying to play a Parham.  Anyway the Qe7 stuff might indeed be very good for Black, but someone will have to give it a more serious look than I can at this time.

Lokaz, I don't know why you're playing 7... g6 with the Bishop already on e7.  Without the fianchetto that's only making a weakness which White jumps into with Bh7... I don't see what's wrong with waiting for Bh7 if White wants to force the issue and playing Ne8 instead of weakening the Kingside.  I'm doing this comment without computer help, so I'm wrong here as I'm no IM or GM either.  ;)

Just philosophically, if Nakamura thinks Nf6 is best that may just be because it fits with his style.  It's certainly a good move, I don't think any strong player would suggest it's not good for at least equality, probably more.  It may not be the best move in the position, but it may be the favorite of people who enjoy sharp, open, complex positions anyway.  There's no need for the slower, more positional player to be swayed, though, if they like something else.  Black has options here, and at least my engine is telling me all of them look pretty good for Black.

Where are you exactly saying ...f5, Wouter?

I'm not, ask conzipe :D.

Sorry... still not learning how these forums work... looked at the text in grey under you handle, which is the text you were quoting, not the text you wrote. 

If we're talking 1. e4 e5 2. Qh5 Nc6 3. Bc4 g6 4. Qf4 f5 that doesn't look very good for Black at all.  Certainly it might be a good surprise weapon since it's pretty obviously good for Black if White takes the pawn and taking the pawn might be an automatic response of someone who's never seen that 'garbage-looking' move before.  It's just if we're looking for a 'propper rebuke' here I don't think it has value since White seems to keep an edge with natural devoplment against it, unless you want to show some analysis that suggests otherwise, Conzipe.

I completely agree, Black is slightly better in the fianchetto line.  If you like that play for Black you don't need to look at the other options that don't suit your style.  As far as 15-20 moves deep... Yeah, I don't know where that theory is.  I can point engines at positions and let them deep think, but a stronger player would choose the positions better and even I don't want to spend as much time as it would take to do as good as I could do with this crappy line.  I didn't write down the line Houdini gave me when I let it deep think 15 moves into the fianchetto line on its own but it was all fairly sensical stuff I didn't think I'd have to take down to remember the gist of later and it came up about a quarter of a pawn in Black's favor.  The theory is not readily available because this line is so bad there isn't so much demand for it.  I imagine that's why a lot of players (who aren't novices looking for an easy checkmate) play this way... just to get you out of the book.  Now anyone reading this thread has several good options to get at least booked up enough to achieve a slight advantage on.

When I coached a grade school chess team, I talked to another coach who swore by this system for his team, and I seem to remember that if white is willing to allow black to move Nd4 and then fork his king and rook by Nxc2+, white can use the time involved in that to pile up on black's f6 knight with his queen, queen's bishop and knight to d5, winning the piece and possibly checkmating black.  I just haven't run into anyone who played it that way, guess I should have played him to find out.  I did teach my kids how to play the beginnings of it anyway, so they would know what to do if it was played against them.  Mainly, it's used just to get a lot of quick, cheap wins against other novice chess players.

I have a question about the matrix chess system.
I read something about it and the bishop worth the same as the rook because the bishop and the rook both support the queen to give checkmate in the same amount of directions.
But does that nog basically mean that if your opponent manages to get into an engdame your dead lost?

Yes I know. I am talking about the matrix system. I am asking a question about it.

Yes, but a lone rook can checkmate a king and win the game where a lone bishop cannot.  The "x" is not as good as the "+" because the "x" is full of holes the enemy can walk through whereas the "+" is a solid wall.  The "x" only controls half the squares on the board, those of one color whereas the "+" controls all of the squares on the board.  It's true the value of the pieces on the board change depending on the position and a rook in the opening may not be as good as a well-placed bishop.  This is why exchange sacrifices can be so affective, but you have to keep in mind they are sacrifices.  You are giving something real up when you trade a rook for a Bishop.  If you toss away your rooks for the enemy bishops and get nothing in return you will lose in endgame.  The engame is part of well-played chess.  The pieces and points eventually do matter unless your opponent plays very badly and you get a win out of the opening.  "Winning the game as quickly as you can" is a fun way to play and even sometimes works at super grandmaster level, but not very often.  Minatures can be masterful games, but they're genererally only possible when they involve blunders on the part of the opponent.  At a certain skill level you can't count on your opponent blundering anymore and you have to try to win the long game.  Actually the reason the Parham attack is so harmless is it tries to checkmate too quickly and ends up squandering White's opening advantage by letting black hit back against the wayward queen.  (If chess were actually about "winning the game as quick as you can" do you think so many of the highest level games would end in long draws?)

The matrix value system for rooks vs. bishops is inaccurate, it just sounds good on paper.  

yes if your playing regular chess and traditional way of thinking, but this is parham attack, were tactics and combinations kills the opponent dead on