|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Oct-30-12
 | | Abdel Irada: <Nightsurfer: CM Bernard Parham is actually writing chess theory - with his favourite move <2.Qh5!! ...> after <1.e4 ... whatsoever ...>.> I play the Alekhine. :-D |
 |
Oct-30-12
 | | fm avari viraf: Yes, we were born in the same year but only dissimilarity over the board that I don't play 2.Qh5 |
|
Oct-30-12
 | | perfidious: The wikilink is dead, as I got that article deleted some months ago; it was one of the sillier pieces on Wikipedia. One would have thought that Parham was, in some way, notable by their standards. If he merits a spot over there, so do thousands of other players. |
|
Oct-30-12
 | | Infohunter: Clearly Parham is one of those individuals who has a set way of doing things and sticks to it at all costs. But it seems to have served him reasonably well, just the same. |
|
| Oct-30-12 | | michael350: i met parham as a young chess player and used his system for many of years. And many of his students have gone on too great succuess with his system. parham is a great guy and teacher i miss him dearly. i learned alot....a study of his games will show you what i mean,,,,, |
|
Oct-31-12
 | | Nightsurfer: Hello <Master Parham>, so it has been your 66th birthday yesterday on October 30th, 2012! Congratulations! German singer Udo Juergens (more information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Udo_J%...) has sung the right song for all those people who eventually turn 66: "Mit 66 Jahren faengt das Leben an ...", translation: "Life starts at age 66 ...", just tune in to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zFP... ! You have been named <PLAYER OF THE DAY OCTOBER 30th, 2012> and I think that you deserve it: not only for consequently playing <1.e4 2. Black plays whatever she or he chooses to play ...> - except the Alekhine, hello <Abdel Irada>!! - plus <2.Qh5!! ...> , but for having created the innovative <Matrix System of Chess> as well! |
|
| Oct-31-12 | | savagerules: Wouldn't 1...g6 also prevent 2 Qh5? unless White sacking the queen on move 2 to double black's rook pawns is part of the plan. Dubious sac in my opinion. or even 1...h5 2 Qh5 Rxh5 with 1 pawn for the queen. |
|
Oct-31-12
| | Abdel Irada: <Nightsurfer>: Your English usage is of course your choice, and certainly you can expect some latitude given that English is not your native language, but "consequent" implies that the move is the *consequence* or logical result of a cause-effect relationship that isn't clear in this case. It is certainly *consistent* for Parham to play 1. e4 and 2. Qh5 against (virtually) any defense, but absent that logical sequence, I don't think it can be considered "consequent." ---
As for playing 2. Qh5 against the Alekhine, the Robatsch or the Pickering: This would perfectly illustrate Ralph Waldo Emerson's maxim, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." |
|
Nov-01-12
| | Infohunter: <Abdel Irada
...
...Ralph Waldo Emerson's maxim, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."> This puts me in mind of a detestable trick I have seen some intellectually dishonest folks employ in their rhetoric: They deliberately omit the second word of this maxim, thus attempting to indict logical consistency *as such*. |
|
Nov-01-12
| | Abdel Irada: <Infohunter>: As a matter of fact, the Wikipedia article on Emerson's _Self-Reliance_ mentions that occasional omission, although it doesn't go so far as to impute deceptive motives for it. (Technically, I suspect both the second word and the initial indefinite article are omitted. "A consistency..." would sound awfully awkward and might incur suspicion.) |
|
Nov-01-12
| | Nightsurfer: <Abdel Irada> You have put it right, my English is too bad, I am very sorry! Thank you for the correction with regard to my assessment of Parham's trademark move <2.Qh5!! ...>: the correct word is <"consistent">, thank you so much! This is a forum for learning - so today I have improved my English once more again, <SHUKRAN>!!, dear <Abdel Irada>! Talking of the posting by <savagerules>: thank you so much for underlining the eventual move <1. ... g6>, that prevents <2.Qh5 ...> - and the foregoing is true for <1. ... h5!!> as well, of course. But I am sure - and I do not assume that anybody would disagree - that even that stubborn Master <Bernard Parham> would NOT stick to his <2.Qh5!! ...>-masterplan after having been confronted with either <1. ... Nf6> or <1. ... g6> or <1. ... h5>, wouldn't he?! :-) |
|
Nov-01-12
| | Abdel Irada: <Nightsurfer>: 3afwan. Regarding 1. ...g6 and 1. ...h5: They are called the Robatsch Defense and Pickering's Defense, respectively. |
|
Nov-01-12
 | | Marmot PFL: <Talking of the posting by <savagerules>: thank you so much for underlining the eventual move <1. ... g6>, that prevents <2.Qh5 ...> Why prevent Qh5? White might actually find a good move. |
|
Nov-01-12
| | Abdel Irada: <Marmot PFL: <Talking of the posting by <savagerules>: thank you so much for underlining the eventual move <1. ... g6>, that prevents <2.Qh5 ...>> Why prevent Qh5? White might actually find a good move.> In most cases, 2. Qh5 *is* a perfectly good move.
This is not to suggest that it's often the strongest move, but it can generally be played for equality. Since equality eventually ensues from any properly played opening, this makes it pragmatically just as good as any other continuation. |
|
Nov-01-12
| | Marmot PFL: <This is not to suggest that it's often the strongest move, but it can generally be played for equality. Since equality eventually ensues from any properly played opening, this makes it pragmatically just as good as any other continuation.> Your first sentence contradicts your second. Maybe you should read a book on basic logic. 2 Qh5 is not "just as good" as any other move, any opening database will prove that. Opening Explorer |
|
Nov-01-12
 | | alexmagnus: <2 Qh5 is not "just as good" as any other move, any opening database will prove that> In this case databases prove nothing as the opening is mostly payed by beginners. Nakamura played it twice back in 2005, losing to Sasikiran (but not due to the opening - look at the position in case of 23.e5) and drawind with Mitkov. 2.Qh5 against 1...e5 is OK. But not against 1...c5, where it leads to the queen being harrassed without any compensation. |
|
Nov-01-12
| | alexmagnus: As for the question why Nakamura hasn't played it again - it lost its surprise value. But "an opening suited only for surprises" is not necessary a bad opening. Things like King's Gambit are not bad either, but on top level it just ends up in a relatively uneventful draw if played unsurprisingly. |
|
Nov-01-12
| | Marmot PFL: I have my thoughts as to why 2Qh5 is mainly used by beginners but as I am outvoted I will humbly concede the point. Why don't you favor us with one of your wins with this undeservedly neglected line? I am always eager to learn, as no doubt is everyone here. |
|
Nov-01-12
| | alexmagnus: I'm not a GM for my win to be a result of the opening :D. But I didn't say it's winning anyway - neither is any 2. Nf3 line. Playing prepared by both players, it actually gets into a quite a boring and equal position (Nakamura gave some "main" lines in one of the SOS editions). |
|
Nov-01-12
| | alexmagnus: Btw beginners: ever noted that when brought up to beginners, the opening is never seriously analyzed? One only shows that a) how to avoid early blunders on moves 2-5 as Black
2)that 5.Qb3??? loses.
Never you find a normally played longish line in a beginner's book. Because you just cannot really refute the move. |
|
Nov-01-12
| | Marmot PFL: <I'm not a GM for my win to be a result of the opening :D. But I didn't say it's winning anyway - neither is any 2. Nf3 line.> To avoid all the 2 Nf3 theory I have been playing 2 Bc4 online lately, and done well for an opening that isn't considered very dangerous. Usually it stays in the Bishop's Opening or transposes to King's Gambit Declined. Both are OK for black but he does have to understand what's going on, and white avoids the risk of the normal King's Gambit. |
|
Nov-01-12
| | Abdel Irada: <Marmot PFL>: Are you usually so gratuitously offensive? Try to understand: Every reasonable opening sooner or later leads to equality, but some allow Black to achieve it immediately, while others hold the initiative longer. This means that the latter class can be considered pragmatically stronger, in that they improve the odds of Black defending improperly and failing to equalize, but with correct play, all openings are sound. As to Opening Explorer: I hate to reveal such hidden arcana, but ... it's not a perfect instrument. It represents a large but by no means comprehensive database of games, in which the set of games with 2. Qh5 is quite small, and all of the games are conducted by more or less flawed players; therefore, what you see will not necessarily reflect correct play, and the statistics are no better than the data from which they are drawn. So, to recapitulate the logic:
•In principle, assuming perfect defense, every opening tends toward equality over time. However, again assuming perfect defense, some openings retain the initiative longer than others. •In practice, assuming flawed defense, the longer White holds the initiative, the greater the probability that Black will fail to equalize. This makes some openings pragmatically "stronger" than others. Conclusion: It is possible for two openings to be equally sound in principle, but for one to be stronger in practice. I hope this isn't beyond the scope of your basic logic text. |
|
Nov-02-12
| | Infohunter: I think the main thing one can say in favor of 2.Qh5 is that it works well for Parham, since he has a set-in-concrete way of playing. Anyone not as thoroughly steeped in that way as he is would be well-advised to try something else. For the record, I have never tried the Parham Attack, nor am I now inclined to consider doing so. |
|
Nov-02-12
| | Infohunter: Larger databases, because less picky about game quality, can be found at these sites: http://www.chesslive.de./
http://mychess.com/
http://www.chess.com/
http://www.365chess.com/
And I am sure there must be a host of others. |
|
Nov-02-12
| | Abdel Irada: <Larger databases, because less picky about game quality....> This, of course, brings us to the quality-vs.-quantity dichotomy. These sites offer larger sample sizes, but because they are of dubious quality, the data sets are compromised. (And it must be stipulated that the character of this opening lends itself to games of dubious quality, further distorting the samples). Let me clarify that I, too, would never play this opening (except possibly in a blitz game for sheer surprise value, and probably not even then). That it is "playable" does not mean that it is strong or offers White much practical chance of gaining an advantage against any but novice opposition. About all that can be said in defense of the tempo-wasting 2. Qh5 is that it forces Black to distort his own position to defend against White's threats. That he can do this without sustaining disadvantage is clear, but he will also not gain a lasting advantage unless White compounds the loss of time with actual errors. |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
