| Aug-14-05 | | PhilFeeley: Someone once suggested that 2. Qh5 be called the Nakamura attack, but Parham has been using it long before him. This game, although a loss, goes back to 1988 and is extrememly complex. I see Chessgames.com doesn't have some of his other games. A discussion of his system and some games are here: http://www.thechessdrum.net/tournam... |
|
Aug-25-05
 | | alexmagnus: Hm, Phil, nice stuff about his system, thx.. |
|
| May-08-06 | | sldr989: I think white is was trying to play with fire. Honestly, white's game is kind of sad. It would work if he was playing someone in the 1300s. I don't think white was playing for a win. I will never get close to their rating (unless itz on yahoo chess), but from my layman's view of the popcorn gallery, white's game fell when he lost his g3 pawn. The white queen might as well been paarked in a tailer park in Texas. Any one will known, never exchange a defender. The fight is for g6 square.. and black's postion is well fortified. Give the rating difference, i can understand why white would do something like this at the club level. After all, at the club level the blackmar diemer gambit is popular............... |
|
May-21-06
| | alexmagnus: sldr, check the other Parham games. Qh5 is his standard move, he even wrote a book on it. |
|
| Mar-14-08 | | NM James Schuyler: Of course the opening will be known as the Nakamura Attack. Nakamura is a grandmaster--he has used 2.Qh5 selectively and intelligently, and he has made it work. No amount of "Matrix" mumbo-jumbo can disguise the fact that 2.Qh5 is an awful move except after 1.e4 e5. I may win a few tournament games with 1.h4, even against USCF experts (in fact, I have) but that doesn't make it good, no matter what I call it or how much theory I invent, or even if I write a book. |
|
| Jun-11-08 | | Landman: I have to agree with NM Shulyer. 2.Qh5 is playable only because just about everything is playable. Strong players (like Parham and especially Nakamura) can get away with moves like 2.Qh5. Take this game for example - up until 18.Bd3? White has reasonable chances despite the horrible pawn structure and King position. |
|
| Feb-19-10 | | rich187113: Don't be stupid, this is not the Parham attack and it's certainly not the Nakamura attack it's the wayward queen attack. Heck if this has been renamed the Parham attack then I want the Trompowsky attack to be renamed the McCarthy attack. |
|
| Mar-18-10 | | shatranj7: What's wrong with it being called "The Parham Attack?" Isn't he the first, on record, to systematize the opening and support it with a body of theory? All of the openings used today are not named after grandmasters. The Sicilian Dragon is named after for a place where 1...c5 was widely used in tournaments, and the so-called "dragon" look of the pawn formation. I mean, he did make it to the level of National Master, in a time when discrimination against blacks was rampant. He's a pioneer in the opening. He's beaten and drawn grandmasters with it. Nakamura never won a major tournament with it, though he's drawn two and lost one. Nakamura is certainly the greater player, but the opening should be named after Dr. Bernard Parham, a pioneer in African-American chess. |
|
| Mar-18-10 | | shatranj7: As for NM Schuyler, it's beyond the realm of possibility for a human being, at this point, to analyze every aspect or possible variation that could arise from any opening. That's why many openings that were long though to be refuted were resurrected and improved upon. For instance, Spassky beat Fischer with the King's Gambit. Fischer considered that opening "bust." Fischer and Kasparov have both resurrected so-called "refuted" openings themselves. I know you're a master. I'm not. But I'm enough of an enthusaiast to know that no one possesses the totality of chess knowledge, therefore we don't qualify to disrespect a man's hard work that he put into developing a theory. Even if we do reject or refute a theory, it should be done so, not by calling it "mumbo-jumbo," but showing its inconsistencies. Could Dr. Parham's race be the source of your contempt? I mean, you did laud Nakamura's use of 2.Qh5. You even said you've used 1.h5, which is considered by many as a weak opening. |
|
Oct-09-11
 | | FSR: Grandmaster Hans Ree called 2.Qh5 a "provocative but quite sensible move." http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hans1... In the same article, he noted that Vladimir Kramnik (!!) had prepared the opening for use against Kasparov in blitz games, and considered the position after 2.Qh5 Nc6 3.Bc4 g6 4.Qf3 Nf6 5.Ne2 equal. And in fact Kasparov was only able to draw a consultation game against 2.Qh5: W Harrelson vs Kasparov, 1999. |
|
| Oct-30-12 | | Abdel Irada: Whether it is a "good" move or not is debatable, but <Landman> is correct in his irenicism: Almost any opening is playable for White. In fact, White could perhaps have reversed the outcome of this game with 18. Rxg6, winning two minor pieces for a rook. (Although, since Black has compensation, I think a draw would have been the most likely outcome.) The lemon that killed him was 18. Bd3?, after which his position rapidly disintegrated. ---
A note on opening nomenclature: The Parham Attack is 1. e4, e5; 2. Qh5. Against the Sicilian, 2. Qh5 has no specific name. |
|
|
|
|
Kibitzing
