|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 7 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Aug-10-06
 | | alexmagnus: <Marmot> I checked all the black wins.... White players were just beginners who made a mistake already around the move 5-6... If one knows Qh5 good, one can get a good game (as white), even against a prepared opponent. |
|
| Aug-10-06 | | Marmot PFL: If only beginners play an opening, that should tell you something...naka doesn't anymore, at least he is growing up. Some of his opening ideas I like, such as the MacCutcheon French and the Albin Counter-gambit. I think both have been underestimated by theory. |
|
Aug-11-06
| | alexmagnus: <If only beginners play the opening, that should tell you something> Ever heard of Bernard Parham? He plays radically, namely 2.Qh5 against almost every blacks response to 1.e4. I think it's wrong but against 1...e5 it is playable. And Nakamura doesn't play it after that crushing loss to Volokitin... But it was 1.e4 c5 2.Qh5, which is much worse than 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5. The reason the Parham Attack is played mostly by beginners is its beginner-like looking. As beginners we get a "refutation" of this opening (5.Qb3?? Nd4 etc., or, like Kasparov wrote in one of his books for kids, 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 Nc6 3.Nf3??) after which most people don't bother to analyze is carefully. Parham's example shows that it's possible to reach Master level playing Qh5 against everything - I think if he played it against 1..e5 only his rating would be even higher. |
|
| Feb-06-08 | | whiteshark: If you play <5...d6> 
click for larger view instead of 5...Bg7, is <6.h3> a necessary (time losing) move due to 6...Bg4 or not ? |
|
Feb-06-08
| | alexmagnus: <whiteshark> Nakamura analyzed exactly this game in the article mentioned on my chessforum. Firstly, 5... d6 was actually played against Nakamura once, and the opening of that game is what he gives as best play (Nakamura vs N Mitkov, 2005). On 8...0-0 (in the Mitkov game) Nakamura gives 9.0-0 "with normal position". |
|
| Apr-11-09 | | HannibalSchlecter: Qh5 is ridiculous. I'm sorry but the annotators giving 2. Qh5 a (!?) are out of their minds. |
|
| Jul-25-09 | | VaselineTopLove: Wouldn't 71...Rxd3+ 72.Kxd3 Bxg4 been a simpler win for black? |
|
| Jul-25-09 | | VaselineTopLove: I just realized the line I posted below draws... |
|
| Feb-05-11 | | hblume: The following was written by Einar S Einarsson, who knew Bobby Fischer in his last Iceland days: Only once he sat down with me opened his travel chess set and studied for a while a game which I had pointed out to him, from NIC 2005/4, between the US Champion Hikaru Nakamura and Krishnan Sasikiran, played in Copenhagen 2005, 1.e4 e5, 2 Qh5 !? a move which he found hilarious and a good example of how frustrated professional chessplayers of today had become, allowing themselves to break all traditonal theories and tactics in chess in their severe search for new moves, a clear witness of that the classical chess was emtied or finished. |
|
| Apr-23-11 | | wordfunph: "Some years ago I played the now rather (in)famous 2.Qh5 against GM Sasikiran from India. While I am not happy with the final result of the game I still feel that this funny looking line is quite playable. With 2.Qh5 I do not intend to go for the four move checkmate known as Scholar's Mate. Instead my main goal is simply to develop the bishop to c4, the knight to e2, and castle kingside, with a small advantage." - GM Hikaru Nakamura (in Secrets of Opening Surprises Vol. 7 by Jeroen Bosch) |
|
| Jul-23-11 | | WhiteRook48: 2 Qh5 has a good psychological effect, but I don't really consider it good for anything else. |
|
| Oct-09-11 | | Jambow: Actually Nakamura now calls 2 Qh5 dubious, but in this game he was about even until the middle game and went a pawn down and later let his knight get trapped, I wouldn't say the opening left him any worse than equal with white. I played in the Indiana state in Indianapolis against one of Parhams students with black and got hit with this, it did kinda throw me off, but I found the correct first 4 or 5 moves and went on to win by a small margin. Bernard was watching but I didn't have a clue that it was his system. Others said oh you got the Parham attack which is pretty common in Indiana where Parham resides. Bernard was a Master himself rated around 21-2200 I think maybe a bit higher. |
|
| Apr-01-12 | | Whitehat1963: Time to revisit this epic in the wacky Opening of the Day. |
|
| Nov-17-12 | | wildrookie: Is it serious to play Qh5 on the second move for a player with 2500 + rating when pitted against a player of comparable strength? I've always thought it's patzer-like move... |
|
| Nov-17-12 | | Xeroxx: I remember this game. Nice picture. |
|
Apr-17-13
 | | PawnSac: <keypusher: <<Warrush: 2 Qh5?? Isn't this considered a foolish opening?> By snobs it is> By fools it isn't.>
I think in the final analysis Qh5 allows black to equalize too easily, leading to a pretty much level game. In this game tho Naka lost because he was seeking complications and pressing too hard for the win, when alternative moves would have left him solid. One such example is 22.Nfe2, when Nfd5 would have in all likelyhood given white a little space in a pretty level endgame. As it is, white outplayed himself. |
|
Apr-17-13
| | PawnSac: < Giearth: Ahh, I simply forgot that one. ;) humble is more, err.. humbler than honest, IMHO. ;p > I think HONEST is more humble than HUMBLE, since Humble presumes humility when in fact it could be feigned. < IMHonestO > lol |
|
| Oct-20-13 | | Ulhumbrus: 12...Na5! avoids the unpleasant pin 13 Bb5 after 13...0-0-0 as in the game D Radovanovic vs C Tesik, 2010 |
|
| Nov-02-15 | | zanzibar: The real shock is that <CG> doesn't list this as a notable game for their <Wandering Queen> opening game list: Opening Explorer Here's a post by Nakamura in a bulletin board chat for the game: <Hikaru Nakamura | May 6, 2005 8:56 PM
Hello everyone! After so many random comments I feel like explaining why I played 2.Qh5 and what inspired it. So here it goes... The night before I was to play GM Sasikiran in round 7, I decided to connect to the wireless internet from my room in Denmark. As such, I couldn't avoid logging on ICC and chatting with friends. After talking randomly with some people Jason Doss a.k.a. Jdoss on ICC suggested that I play 2.Qh5! Although I think Jason was only half-serious at the time I thought it was a practical opening choice and more importantly a surprise. I have analyzed this line thoroughly, and will probably play 2.Qh5 in the future...maybe in Minnesota, who knows? I think that in order for chess to be interesting in the future people need to come up with new ideas and avoid all the computer-prepared variations, which makes chess dull and unexciting as players do not have to exhibit real skill.
Anyways in response to what some other Grandmasters have said; I do not believe that 2.Qh5 is a playable move, in fact I had a very good position in the game, and was close to winning if I had in fact played 23.e5. Alas, due to my style I went for all or broke and lost the game. I truly believe that one only has one life to live, therefore one must enjoy this world. What does one loss mean in the scheme of life?> (Apologies if this has been posted before)
http://www.chessninja.com/dailydirt... OK, I do like to repeat things that are worth repeating... < Alas, due to my style I went for all or broke and lost the game. <I truly believe that one only has one life to live, therefore one must enjoy this world. What does one loss mean in the scheme of life?>> |
|
Apr-25-16
 | | tpstar: A perfectly timed picture. =)
<What does one loss mean in the scheme of life?> Pretty profound. Some juniors try 1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Bc5 3. Qf3 Nf6 4. g4?! trying to win material with 5. g5 and a Terminal Pin against the Nf6 due to the mate threat on f7. Then coaches have to untrain them from these bad habits. If White wants surprise value from a double King Pawn opening, perhaps the King's Gambit or Vienna are better suited. |
|
Apr-30-18
 | | Richard Taylor: <alexmagnus: <whiteshark> Nakamura analyzed exactly this game in the article mentioned on my chessforum. Firstly, 5... d6 was actually played against Nakamura once, and the opening of that game is what he gives as best play (Nakamura vs N Mitkov, 2005). On 8...0-0 (in the Mitkov game) Nakamura gives 9.0-0 "with normal position...> The now onboard Stockfish gives 5...d6 6. Nbc3 Bg7 7. d3 Nb4 8. Bb3 Be6 9. Bg5 Bxb3 10. cxb3 h6 11. Bxf6 Bxf6 12. O-O O-O 13. Rac1 a5 14. Rcd1 Bg7 15. d4 exd4 16. Nxd4 c6... The position at move five is virtually evaluated as = |
|
| Aug-04-19 | | gambitfan: After 87... b1Q 88 g8Q mate in 5 moves "Queen + Rook roll" |
|
Jun-25-20
 | | sleepyirv: A game that reminds of the phrase <A Scholarly Rebuke> |
|
Jul-22-24
 | | plang: 4..f5!? in the spirit of the Kings Gambit would have led to interesting complications. Already, 5 Ne2 was a new move (not counting a 1991 computer game). Black has to show caution: 7..Na5? 8 Nd5..Nxd5 (8..Nxc4? 9 Bg5 and White wins) 9 Bxd5..0-0 10 a3..Be6 11 h4! with a strong attack. Sasikiran was critical of 14..a6? claiming this was a cause of his problems later on; 14..a5 would have been better with just a small White edge. Sasikran after 18 0-0-0:
"A difficult decision, but not the most accurate one. Black was waiting to castle on the same side of White. But Black's king is much weaker on the kingside (h6 being a critical weakness) than on the queenside. Besides, Black will have to exchange the monster bishop on d4, which will weaken his king even more. In view of this assessment, 18 0-0! is much stronger. White simply places his rooks on d1 and e1, plays h3 (in some cases with a preliminary g4) and Ng3 and starts advancing on the kingside with f4-f5, etc. Black has no counterplay, as c5 weakens d6 and the d5 square." White should have accepted Black's exchange sacrifice with 23 e4..dxe 24 Ba7+..Kh8 25 Bc5 with some initiative; instead after 23 g4?! Black wads able to comfortably regroup his pieces. With 26..Be5 Black offered a draw that was declined. 44 bxc? was a pawn sacrifice that seemed to overlook Black's 47th move; 44 Nxe6 would have maintained equality. |
|
| Aug-10-24 | | Amarande: The various treatments of 2 Qh5 shows the variety and balance of Chess quite well indeed. (I expect its poor record is likely tied to skill difference; how is White's rating compared to Black's in the games it's been played in?) 4 Qf3 feels a little much though; the Queen should probably retreat to e2 as to not block the Knight, as Qf3 is easily countered by Nf6, while Qd1 unnecessarily loses tempo (it is a reasonable reply if Black continues Nd4, but one should allow the opponent to cede tempo first) and Qh3 or Qg4 loses a piece to 4 ... d5! After 4 Qe2 White actually has quite a good game to look forward to. The Queen's lost tempo is offset by 3 ... g6, and now Black is virtually obligated to develop the DSB relatively innocuously to g7 while White has been able to place the LSB aggressively. If development continues naturally, a likely line is 4 ... Nf6 5 Nc3 Bg7 6 d3, and White has good near future possibilities in Bg5/Nd5 or f4, while Black's ... d5 is still frustrated. It feels like one of those weird lines that one whose temperament aligns with the like of Chigorin, Nimzowitsch, or Tartakower would likely enjoy. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 7 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
Annotations by 
