I have been playing the Parham Attack against 1...e5 about 15 times in Blitz games so far, and I have been succesful with it, winning two thirds of the time. That shouldn't be a surprise, since dubious openings are often successful in Blitz because of the surprise effect.

Today I played the Parham in a standard game for the first time. I won, and although my opponent didn't play perfectly, the game is a good example of the practical advantages of this opening.

1. e4 e5
2. Qh5 Nc6
3. Bc4 g6
4. Qf3 Nf6
5. Ne2 Bg7
6. Nbc3 0-0
7. d3 d6
8. Bg5 h6
9. Bh5 g5
10. Bg3 Nd4
11. Nxd4 exd4
12. Nd5 Nxd5
13. Bxd5 c6
14. Bb3 Qa5+
15. Kf1 Be5
16. Qh5 Kg7
17. f4 Bxf4
18. Bxf4 f5
19. Bxd6 Rf6
20. Be7 Qe5
21. Bxf6+ Qxf6
22. e5

1-0

If you're going to tell me why the parham attack is unsound, I want to hear a better reason than "it violates all of the rules of chess". The reason why this opening is playable is because once I threaten mate, black can't defend without making a concession. 3... g6 weakens the kingside, and gives white good attacking chances if black is to castle short. 3...Qe7, blocks the bishop, which forces the black queen to move a second time. I also don't want to hear that it's only equal, because I'll take an equal position that my opponent doesn't know over a .20 pawn advantage where my opponent is booked up any day of the week.

En/na lightarrow ha escrit:
(...)

Today I played the Parham in a standard game for the first time. I won,
and although my opponent didn't play perfectly, the game is a good
example of the practical advantages of this opening.

(...)

If you're going to tell me why the parham attack is unsound, I want to
hear a better reason than "it violates all of the rules of chess". The
reason why this opening is playable is because once I threaten mate,
black can't defend without making a concession. 3... g6 weakens the
kingside, and gives white good attacking chances if black is to castle
short. 3...Qe7, blocks the bishop, which forces the black queen to
move a second time. I also don't want to hear that it's only equal,
because I'll take an equal position that my opponent doesn't know over
a .20 pawn advantage where my opponent is booked up any day of the
week.

Hello mr Lightarrow,

I suggest (after 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5) 2...Bd6!?
Please do not tell me "it violates all of the rules of chess".
The reason why this move is playable is that the loss of a tempo (I'm
planning to move the Bd6 to c5 later) will be recovered after ...Nf6 and
after 3.Bc4 Qe7 the queen "does not block the bishop".

Maybe that move (2...Bd6) only lead to an equal position but that does
not matter because 2.Qh5 is not a losing mistake

Antonio

Actually, I have considered the move 2... Bd6!?, but I don't see how it is better than 2... Nc6 and 3...Qe7. You avoid the bishop getting blocked, but you still have to defend the mate threat with Qe7, which isn't Black's most useful developing move. After you move your bishop again, your queen will still be on e7, when you could have used that tempo to move your queen to a more useful square such as e6 after exchanging light squared bishops and giving white doubled c-pawns.

One of white's problems with the 3...Qe7 variation is that c2 is weak, but white can avoid that problem by delaying the development of his queen's knight until the Queen's bishop is developed to g5.

The move that scares me the most is 2... Nf6!?, when black gains three tempi for the pawn.

lightarrow wrote:
I have been playing the Parham Attack against 1...e5

It should be the Gnohmon Counterattack; Gnohmon because I invented
[1] it in 1957 when I was 12 years old (of course, I was not the
first to invent it, but who's Parham, either?); counterattack because
Black plays it. So the name you give it is wrong twice.

1. e4 e5
2. Qh5 Nc6

Did you know that 2...d6 3 Bc4 Nh6 is playable bacause if 4 d4?!
Bc8-g4!

Even in a stupid beginners' opening like this -- oops, I mean, even in
the dreaded Gnohmon Counterattack, there are often amazing depths to
chess.

[1] I also invented the invisible smiley, the only smiley approved for
use in afu.

Parham is an Indiana master/expert with some very interesting, if not
wholly correct, ideas. I believe he uses vector analysis in his chess
theories, and thinks 2. Qh5 is the best move as it is the longest move
on the board (I apologize if I have misrepresented him). I found his
ideas very interesting when starting to compose chess problems as the
longest move of a Q,R, or B is often the key or a try as it is
aesthetically pleasing to the eye. He promotes this opening even in his
schlastic chess coaching; I think the name deservedly goes to him,
despite the fact that someone else played it in 1957, to say nothing of
1857 or 1757....

He wrote a book on this that I have not been able to find; it was of
course self-published. Sometimes theories like his have limited
applicability (one of my colleagues is an expert in vector analysis,
and when I discussed what I knew of his theories, he said they sounded
like the usual oddball theory(ies) with just enough truth to convince
the innovator, but that there were definitely some valid points he was
making).

That's what's wrong: 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 Nf6! 3.Qxe5+ Be7 4.Bb5 0-0! and black's development advantage is huge.

" I believe he uses vector analysis in his chess
theories, and thinks 2. Qh5 is the best move as it is the longest move
on the board "

Actually, 2Ba6 is longer, but loses a piece.

I believe you mean 4. Bc4, but yeah, that gives black a huge lead in
development for the pawn either way.

Of course, most games between class players (2000 ELO) are decided by
middle game and end game play, especially tactics. So there are plenty
of openings like this that a grandmaster would never touch that are
perfectly playable for us amateurs.

And, in this case, the psychological advantage of making your opponent
think you're a total patzer, and that they should be able to refute
your opening, might actually be useful. I've seen many people lose by
overextending their position while trying to refute a theoretically
unsound, yet still playable, opening. I even did it once or twice
myself before I realized that the refutations to bad openings often
involve long term advantages, not necessarily something that can be
immediately attacked.

--Richard

wrote:

Of course, most games between class players (2000 ELO) are decided by
middle game and end game play, especially tactics. So there are plenty
of openings like this that a grandmaster would never touch that are
perfectly playable for us amateurs.

And, in this case, the psychological advantage of making your opponent
think you're a total patzer, and that they should be able to refute
your opening, might actually be useful. I've seen many people lose by
overextending their position while trying to refute a theoretically
unsound, yet still playable, opening. I even did it once or twice
myself before I realized that the refutations to bad openings often
involve long term advantages, not necessarily something that can be
immediately attacked.

'Unsound', too, is a relative term. It is extremely rare that a single
inferior move in the opening will lead to a forced loss. Many analysts
like to believe this (e.g., Tarrasch-von Scheve, Leipzig 1894, where 7
.... Ne4 is often blamed as the losing error; this seems far too simple,
while 7 ... Ne4 was perhaps not the best and did allow White opportunity
for long-range plans, Black made further errors which enabled the White
plan to succeed. IMO, the most significant of these was the decision to
exchange the darksquare bishop later, with the amount of emphasis on
darksquare play the White plan had, I think if he had retained this B he
would have been far better off, and probably had a playable game.) but
it is not at all common that this is the case.


To get back to the opening under analysis - it is true that Black has a
slight advantage (in either the 4 Bc4 or 4 Bb5 variations, Shredder 6.02
shows Black to be about 0.50 pawn units ahead after ...O-O, White's best
next move being 5 Nc3), and that the variation is surely not good enough
against a strong opponent in a tournament (other than the psychological
advantage, and the practical advantage of almost certainly taking the
opponent out of their prepared repertoire into lines where they must use
their time rather than be able to move quickly by the book, thus
increasing the chance of time pressure later).

But to prove it unsound, Black has to find a win. In fact, the
psychological advantage is increased even further by this, because the
onus of proof is fully on Black. He is a pawn down, and has only some
extra time to show for it as yet. To convert this advantage into a win,
he has to find an overwhelming attack based on it. In fact, to even
draw, he needs to recover his pawn before the bare endgame. Even more
than the Lopez Exchange, if we strip down to the Pawn skeleton this
position is hopeless for Black (it gives about a +2.60 evaluation in
White's favor).

White, on the other hand, for his part, need merely find a successful
defense to whatever Black may throw at him (and perhaps find an
opportunity to attack, if Black leaves an opening).

Note also that the shorter the time control, the greater the advantages
accruing to White. As TCs have shortened over time (from sitzfleisch to
30/120 to 40/120 to slightly faster modern FIDE controls, and of course
the popularity of rapid and blitz - this is even more true in online
chess as well, where players wanting slower TCs are even in the minority
compared to blitzers, and indeed on ICC the blitz rating is the
'default' rating displayed in the player list if not otherwise specified
....)



Another interesting situation when it comes to 'unsound' play occurs
mainly against computers (and mostly lower level human players that
overvalue material advantages). This is the sacrifice, usually of a
piece, in the opening for a positional advantage that is probably
insufficient, though not insignificant. This tends to disrupt computer
evaluations highly, as the computer will generally consider the
long-term advantages of the extra piece as most significant when
choosing moves, even though what is truly most important at the moment
is the opponent's temporary, but often very great positional advantage.

The most celebrated example of this is probably the Muller-Schultz
Gambit, also known as the Halloween Gambit in the Four Knights, which is
initiated by 4 Nxe5. Even against humans, there is some considerable
practical advantage to this move - there is the usual psychological and
preparation consideration accruing to an unexpected opening, and
moreover, the psychological advantage that Black probably expected a
calm, slow, probably drawish game (hence why he chose the Four Knights
to begin with), and is now thrown into a sharp tactical one.

I finish this post with an example from a computer vs. computer blitz
thematic I once ran, as to how quickly even a strong computer Black can
fold in the Muller-Schultz:


Amyan 1.54 - Crafty 18.15 [C47]
(Ca. 2002-2003)

1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nxe5 Nxe5 5.d4 Nc6 6.e5 Ng8 7.Bb5 Nge7
8.0-0 Nf5 9.d5 Ncd4 10.Bc4 h5 11.Ne4 a6 12.c3 Nb5 13.Re1 Na7 14.d6 Be7
15.Qf3 0-0 16.Qxf5 cxd6 17.exd6 Nc6 18.Qxh5 1-0

In article ,
Amarande wrote:

He is a pawn down, and has only some
extra time to show for it as yet. To convert this advantage into a win,
he has to find an overwhelming attack based on it.

No, he doesn't.

He just needs enough of an attack to win back a pawn. That's not "an
overwhelming" attack.

It's not like black's doomed to lose if he doesn't find a beautiful
sacrificial attack in the middlegame. He's got bit development advantage
and all he has to do is get a pawn back if he wants equality.

Among class players, who hang pawns all the time, it's not that big a
deal being a pawn down if you have activity.

-Ron