QH5

Nah. 2...Bd6 gives up too much. The bishop has great scope where it is. 2...Nf6! :)

I know, and wasn't commenting that. I just wanted to point out that "deliberate" can be matter of opinion.

Person who lets say accidentally touch his piece, will probably say it was accidental.

His opponent on other hand might say it was deliberate, so it would be difference in opinions, which would then call for an arbiter to decide.

Looking at some threads I have found here it seems that there has been tournament games with: 1. e4 e5 2. Qh5 Ke7 3.Qxe5#. (Edit. davepacker, thank you for pointing the error, Qxh5 replaced with Qxe5). 

You probably agree that Ke7 wasn't intended move and chances are that poor guy accidentally touched his king, but obviously touch move was enforced, so it means that his opponent won the argument

Please note that I didn't comment a moral side of such enforcing, I just wanted to say it can happen

I don't know exactly what do you mean, this sequence is quite possible, although with very low probability.

EDIT: oh, I see it now, 3.Qxe5# of course. Sorry.

I even managed to find a couple of recorded games:

on 365chess.com - Gritchuk vs. SkrypinEvpatoria 2007 · KP, Patzer opening (C20) · 1-0

and

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1371171

but I do not want to hijack a thread, I promise this is my last post here about touching pieces accidentally/deliberately, and the outcome of such touch.

Hey, the queen can do whatever she wants, ok?

btw, that's a nice cat

Perhaps I should have said "absent-mindedly" instead then :)

good god Dh5!!! playible  bat losees

Ok, so if you think this opening is a mistake, i would like to play you. Bernard Parham lives in my town, and he taught me this opening.

I thought I'd have some fun and go back to playing 1...e5 after 1.e4 with the hopes of getting the patzer opening. It happend in my second game. 

1. Nakamura has a terrible track record when playing 1.e4 2.Qh5.

2. I'm a horrible blitz player.

My conclusion: It's easy to beat someone when they play 2.Qh5. It's a dumb, time wasting move. Look at it as a gift and enjoy beating the early queen patzers out there.

As you can see from my play, I need to keep doing tactics trainer a little bit each day!

If this is what you meant then it is a bad idea

Look at the development for black, your queen position is not good

This is the book line for the Patzer opening that Nakamura plays as White. Again, I don't know why he bothers with it. In the Chess.com database, Black has a 75 percent chance of winning.

Is there a better line for White after 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 Nc6? It looks like White will always lose one tempo. A terrible opening line for White. However, Nakamura is a superstar. Who am I?  A patzer!

What does qh5 make of this topic

Ive seen 1. e4 c5 2. Qh5 when I was black. I was even playing Bernard Parham himself (main advocate of Qh5) and I slaughtered him in the mid-game. I don't even know sicilian! I am a 1300-1400 player playing against a master. I am willing to say Qh5 is a mistake against sicilian at the very least.

Kiddie Countergambit  Black is a pawn down, but has a lead in development and stands to gain more time off the exposed white queen. The main advantage of this line is that it avoids the uncomfortable contortions Black must get himself into with the main line (...Qe7 or ...g6).

 I like the lead in development!

The online chessbase database has many examples of 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 Nf6!? 3.Qxe5+.

I don't want to go up against this under 10 year old child!

Well, since people are displaying their games...

its a good move , if they attack the queen then you win by a point, and that is how masters win by one point, plus they are in a situation, which either they have no idea or they just guess what the moves are, it happens in my games alot

The Qh5 works on all opening