It called "The Loser Queen Opening"
That Silly Qh5 Opening
Sort:
Fishsticks
Harry, if 1. e4 e5 2. Qh5 Nf6 refutes it, then white should lose every time! Definition of a refutation!
Nov 30, 2013
0
#8
It isn't the "refutation" of it, but if White is going to play so lamely, almost anything gives Black equality or better.
How many times have we seen beginners play the game:
1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 g6 3.Qxe5+
They don't learn from their mistakes, I guess.
massaquoi wrote:
I was having lunch with Nick deFirmian a few months ago in Berkeley and he told me that the "Patzer" or "Parham" opening is going to be included in Modern Chess Openings, 16th ed. for the first time.
--------------------------
What a coincidence! Just the other day I was out with Magnus, swilling brew and chasing babes. We met two lovely ladies and started discussing chess. One of the ladies mentioned the parham and Magnus just laughed (he still went home with her).
gimmewuchagot wrote:
How many times have we seen beginners play the game:
1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 g6 3.Qxe5+
They don't learn from their mistakes, I guess.
I have never seen this.
Almost any opening works against the Parham.
i like playing the gambit as black. 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 Nf6 3.Qxe5+
black is gaining time for development for the pawn while white is behind.
though im not an e5 player , i play 1.e4 c5 making the parham irrelevant .
This evening, I played a game against one of my friends (who is 2084 USCF) and I had white. It was a silly game, and I played the Parham. My friend laughed, and then played 2. ...Nf6 and said that this move refutes the Parham. Is that accurate? And does it have a name? (I lost badly by the way!!)