What is better; Parham or Queenside Fried Liver

I have been looking at many openings and these are obviously the top 2 but I have been wondering which one of them is better, please voice your opinion.

That was the Queenside Fried Liver.

This is the Parham attack.

Please comment on these beautiful openings.

Since no one has posted an opinion yet, ill just post mine, i believe the parahm is better because of the intangible such as the confusion it causes black if black is a decent player because they would rarely ever see this. I recently just played this against a uscf 1750 player and was able to get him to resign after just 19 moves.

I think you did the parham attack wrong becouse that doesnt make you win

What is this "queen-side Fried Liver" of which you speak of. That looks like the waite-harrison attack after move 3.

I'd say the so called queen side fried liver is better.  However I object to the name because the fried liver involves the sacrifice of a knight.

That is a variation of the Waite-Harrison attack that many people play. Also, IM pfren I assume you mean both are shit compared to the way i play because i am so good so it doesnt matter what i play. Thanks for the complement but i would prefer your opinion on the openings.

he's just dumb, it's the waite harrison attack he means.

yes that last nxc7 move is bad, not only because white doesn't have qc3 like in the fried liver, but simply bxe5 is good. Anyways I think the queenside "fried liver" is probably a bit more sound than the Parham.

It's not a friedliver, he is dumb. The idea is to fork the king and rook. The official name is Waite-Harrison Attack.

Yes the official name is the Waite-Harrison and it has many variations.

Well i guess since they are both automatic wins i guess you guys cant decide which is better.

I thought we established:

A)  The actual queen side fried liver is rubbish.

B)  The main line of the Parham attack is not that scary for black

&

C)  The moves described in the so called 'queen side fried liver' a.k.a a line in the Waite-Harrion give white a big advantage and is therefore better.  

Also I would add that other forums have asked the question, who would play the moves described in the so called 'queen side fried liver' as black?

You know an opening is good when it's SO confusing, the person considering playing it must make a dozen threads simply to decide whether or not he should play it.

So i have heard 2 waite-harrisons now but i wonder if that is because of your bias towards the parham thinking it is noobish. If it was true input i thank you and let it keep coming.

On a more serious note...

Dude, just play whatever, man. Until you play someone 2000+, openings as crazy as that drunken Irish knight nonsense are perfectly fine, because they're enough to throw someone off in their middlegame OTB. Heck, I bet someone with a solid middlegame and endgame could kick serious ass with the hippo at our sub-2000 level.

I would vote for the parham. Both the waite-harrison and the Parham destroy people that suck at chess, but against people who know waht they are doing, the Parham is still pwnage, but the waite-harrison loses its zest. However, with the waite-harrison you don't have to worry about the sicilian, while you do with the Parham. It's difficult to say. Once you get to the Parham, it is better, but it is more difficult to get to the Parham then waite-harrison.

Are you talking to me?

If so then, here's my input:

A) You are correct in your assesment that I don't think that the Parham is that princibled in that you are bringing your queen out so early and all that.

B) Yes, I was giving you my honest assessment of the end positions reached with both opening variations.

If you are asking if I would play any of these openings myself I'd say no.

Why not?  Because, you are assuming that your opponent will not play the best moves and will fall for some cheep tactics, which in my opinion is not conducive to good chess.

This thread is hilarious. I sure hope whatupyodog is a troll.