Oops, I edited my post and you responded so quickly.
Any luck with his matrix idea of chess? Parham was a 2300 master IIRC. If you like the early Qh5 vs 1.e4 you may look at some Parham games to see how he handled it against the Sicilian and other openings.
This is one of the biggest blindspots of beginners. They are often unable to see discoveries from undeveloped pieces. I think, they emotionally believe since it hasn't moved yet, it cannot be a threat.
I'm not a crazy Scholar's mate player, I never actually expect it to work. But i have played so many times with this openener.... with so many variations. My main goal is Misdirection. when you use this opener, most focus on the "scholar's Mate" and dont actually know what I'm ACTUALLY planning. call Scholar's mate a Poker face
Except if you fake trying the scholar's mate, you still have to commit by playing a queen move which isn't very good in most cases
Indeed... moving queen means less pawn and board developement to say the least
Here's how most of my games play against Scholar's Mate.
4. Qxe5 and white forks your king and rook
Only way to stop it is to play counter to it premtively.
Kingside knight to Kingside bishops front of pawn stop this pretty well in turn 1 or 2
I have never seen a Sicilian being played like that.
Yeah I dont think the parham works very well against c5.
Actually I thought it worked even better somehow (?) Maybe I was wrong. I know Parham himself played it against c5 and I thought he had a number of tricky lines.
It may be worth noting, if you didn't know already, that it's part of Parham's larger system he calls matrix chess. Some interesting ideas even if I don't agree with them completely. Anyway it's under this philosophy of chess that the Qh5 stuff is promoted... obviously classical/contemporary thought treats the early Qh5 with much disdain.