| |
Main
Date: 19 Sep 2005 02:08:17
From: lightarrow
Subject: Parham Attack: Show me what's wrong with it.
|
I have been playing the Parham Attack against 1...e5 about 15 times i
Blitz games so far, and I have been succesful with it, winning tw
thirds of the time. That shouldn't be a surprise, since dubiou
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 goo
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 t
hear a better reason than "it violates all of the rules of chess". Th
reason why this opening is playable is because once I threaten mate
black can't defend without making a concession. 3... g6 weakens th
kingside, and gives white good attacking chances if black is to castl
short. 3...Qe7, blocks the bishop, which forces the black queen t
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 ove
a .20 pawn advantage where my opponent is booked up any day of th
week
--
lightarrow
|
|
| |
Date: 09 Dec 2005 02:55:36
From: David Ames
Subject: Re: Parham Attack: Show me what's wrong with it.
|
[email protected] wrote:
>
> Apparently, a gambit used to mean a single pawn, but there are gambits
> these days where players give up more than that materially. For
> instance, the Danish Gambit gives up 2 pawns (1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. c3
> dxc3 4. Bc4 cxb2 5. Bxb2) for raking bishops and control over the
> center.
>
> --Richard
The Muzio, Allgaier, and Cochrane gambits sacrifice a Knight.
David Ames
|
| |
Date: 08 Dec 2005 17:41:53
From: Major Cat
Subject: Re: Parham Attack: Show me what's wrong with it.
|
Many thanks for the clarifications! 8 >)
[email protected] wrote:
>
> Major Cat wrote:
> > Ron wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <[email protected]>,
> > > Aande <[email protected]> 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.
> >
> > Questions. Is a pawn sacrifice the same
> > thing as hanging a pawn or does the per-
> > ceived context matter? Moreover, is a
> > gambit synonymous with any pawn sacrifice
> > whatsoever?
> >
> > >
> > > -Ron
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Major Cat
>
> Generally, the word "sacrifice" implies that it's intentional.You give
> up a pawn in order to gain something in the position. Hanging a pawn
> would be a blunder, not a sacrifice.
>
> A gambit usually refers to a "book" preplanned sacrifice in the
> opening. I'd call it a gambit to play 1. e4 e5 2. Qh5 Nf6 3. Qxe5,
> since black is playing a scripted pawn sacrifice in response to his
> opponent's opening. I don't know if that one has a name. But then, I'm
> no openings expert. I was surprised to hear that 2. Qh5 was called the
> Parham Attack. I thought it was known as the Patzer Attack. Maybe 2.
> ... Nf6 should be called the Anti-Patzer Gambit.
>
> Apparently, a gambit used to mean a single pawn, but there are gambits
> these days where players give up more than that materially. For
> instance, the Danish Gambit gives up 2 pawns (1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. c3
> dxc3 4. Bc4 cxb2 5. Bxb2) for raking bishops and control over the
> center.
>
> --Richard
Regards,
Major Cat
|
| |
Date: 08 Dec 2005 14:07:34
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Parham Attack: Show me what's wrong with it.
|
Major Cat wrote:
> Ron wrote:
> >
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > Aande <[email protected]> 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.
>
> Questions. Is a pawn sacrifice the same
> thing as hanging a pawn or does the per-
> ceived context matter? Moreover, is a
> gambit synonymous with any pawn sacrifice
> whatsoever?
>
> >
> > -Ron
>
> Regards,
>
> Major Cat
Generally, the word "sacrifice" implies that it's intentional.You give
up a pawn in order to gain something in the position. Hanging a pawn
would be a blunder, not a sacrifice.
A gambit usually refers to a "book" preplanned sacrifice in the
opening. I'd call it a gambit to play 1. e4 e5 2. Qh5 Nf6 3. Qxe5,
since black is playing a scripted pawn sacrifice in response to his
opponent's opening. I don't know if that one has a name. But then, I'm
no openings expert. I was surprised to hear that 2. Qh5 was called the
Parham Attack. I thought it was known as the Patzer Attack. Maybe 2.
... Nf6 should be called the Anti-Patzer Gambit.
Apparently, a gambit used to mean a single pawn, but there are gambits
these days where players give up more than that materially. For
instance, the Danish Gambit gives up 2 pawns (1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. c3
dxc3 4. Bc4 cxb2 5. Bxb2) for raking bishops and control over the
center.
--Richard
|
| | |
Date: 09 Dec 2005 11:23:00
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Parham Attack: Show me what's wrong with it.
|
[email protected] <[email protected] > wrote:
> the Anti-Patzer Gambit.
That's Italian for ``appetizer'', right?
Dave.
--
David Richerby Disposable Accelerated Beer (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a refreshing lager but it's
twice as fast and you never have to
clean it!
|
| |
Date: 06 Dec 2005 23:51:30
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Parham Attack: Show me what's wrong with it.
|
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
|
| | |
Date: 08 Dec 2005 13:08:22
From: Amarande
Subject: Re: Parham Attack: Show me what's wrong with it.
|
[email protected] 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
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Dec 2005 19:52:56
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Parham Attack: Show me what's wrong with it.
|
In article <[email protected] >,
Aande <[email protected] > 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
|
| | | | |
Date: 08 Dec 2005 18:21:48
From: Amarande
Subject: Re: Parham Attack: Show me what's wrong with it.
|
Ron wrote:
> 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.
Exactly, EQUALITY.
All winning the pawn back will get him is, perhaps, equality (and this
is of course not guaranteed). This is not sufficient to show that
White's opening is unsound - it may be that White does not get an
advantage, but when we remember that the general consensus is that chess
is a draw, 'unsound' play would have to be that that allows the opponent
to actually be able to win.
Here is a possible continuation (after 1 e4 e5 2 Qh5?! Nf6 3 Qxe5+ Be7 4
Bb5 0-0):
5 Nc3
This appears to be White's best move. The Queen at e5 can hardly be
counted upon to protect the e4 pawn in the long run, and the extra pawn
without development is of course a false advantage. 5 d3 is also worth
considering, but the text has the added advantage of retarding ... d5.
5 ... Nc6
Compelling White to either lose another move with the Queen, or to
surrender the two Bishops to Black. Of course, as a consequence of
White's play, Black has also quite a number of other moves he can play
with good effect, e.g. -
a) 5 ... d6, driving back the Queen, and not allowing White the
opportunity to exchange pieces and disrupt his Pawns as 5 ... Nc6 does.
b) 5 ... a6 6 Ba4 (if 6 Bc4 Nc6 without qualms, this is why White played
the otherwise inferior seeming 4 Bb5 instead of 4 Bc4) b5 7 Bb3 Nc6 and
8 ... Bb7. Black's game is almost fully developed while White still has
only the Queen, lightsquare bishop, and one knight developed. Ouch.
c) 5 ... c6. This is an interesting variation. White should retreat the
Bishop to, say, a4 or e2, after which Black plays d5 with a powerful
game well worth the gambit Pawn. But why can't White just play 6 Bc4,
which apparently prevents ...d5 for the time being? Let's see -
6 Bc4? d5! 7 exd5 (if the B retreats then simply ...d4 or ...dxe4 and
White has already an awful game) Bc5! (Proving that the previous does
not lose a second Pawn, as White must relinquish the guard of d5 with
his Queen - Re8 is threatened and if 8 Qg5? Bxf2+ and White cannot
capture) 8 Qg3 cxd5 9 Bd3 (at b3 the Bishop would be quite out of it)
Ng4 (threatening again Bxf2+) 10 Nh3 Re8+.
White is already in serious trouble in this variation. He has a number
of continuations but Black has already a strong attack, and it is
unclear if White will ever be able to castle. For instance, 11 Be2 d4 12
Nd1 Qe7 13 Ng1 (White cannot castle, as his B needs protection) Bd6 14
Qd3 Nc6 15 a3 (White can hardly allow Nb4, e.g. if he tries to drive off
the other Knight with 15 h3 Nb4 16 Qb3 Be6 17 Qa4 [17 c4 is met by d3]
b5, and wins. If instead of this 15 c3, then simply 15 ... Nge5 followed
by d3, and White loses the B at e2, to begin with.) Nge5! 16 Qb3 (Other
moves are no better.) d3! 17 cxd3 Nf3+!! 18 gxf3 (18 Nxf3 Qxe2#, and 18
Kf1 Nxg1 is no better for White either) Nd4, and the pressure is
overwhelming. In fact mate or the loss of White's Queen is forced, for
instance 19 Qa2 Qxe2+! 20 Nxe2 Nxf3+ and 21 ... Bh3# - or 19 Qd5 (in
order to prevent Nxf3+ in the previous variation) Qxe2+! 20 Nxe2 Rxe2+
21 Kf1 Bh3+ and 22 ... Re1#.
Anyway, this variation is by no means forced (White has other options at
move 11, although by then his game is seriously compromised and it is
unclear if he has an adequate defense to the looming attacks, and he
need by no means play 6 Bc4? provoking the assault. Still, 5 ... c6 and
6 ... d5 is an excellent plan for Black. Naturally the analysis of all
variations is beyond the scope of one post but it seems that 5 ... Nc6,
as I have analyzed out below, is perhaps not the best for Black as White
gets some reasonable chances. 5 ... d6 also seems inferior, as it leaves
a too-passive formation and ... d5 will surely need to be played later.
The 5 ... a6 or 5 ... c6 plans are probably most worth considering.
6 Bxc6 dxc6 7 Nf3 Bd6
The B was quite useless at e7, this does not lose a move as White must
withdraw the Q anyway, and it additionally opens up the e-file for
action in an effort to get towards the White King before he can castle.
8 Qa5
In order to at least have the Q out of the line of useful Black fire for
the time being.
8 ... Nxe4!
Black must attack; if he allows White to castle, his advantage is
considerably lessened, and in view of the fact that White can easily
cover the e-pawn with d3 if given a chance and the lack of other exposed
pawns, the advantage may even pass to White. At any rate, the Pawn is
being regained for the time being, as White will not be able to hold the
extra piece, which is immediately pinned.
9 Nxe4 Qe7 10 Qa4 b5 11 Qd4 f5 12 d3
If 12 O-O at once, then simply 12 ... fxe4. The White Knight is then
attacked, and there are only two reasonable responses to this:
a) 13 Ne1, after which Black has a considerable preponderance of force
aimed Kingside. White's development is very bad, and his pieces get in
each other's way. Black continues 13 ... Bg4 (threatening to win the
Exchange with ... Be2) 14 Qe3 (14 Kh1 Qh4 is crushing - White will soon
have to give up his Queen after, e.g. 15 h3 Bxh3!) Bf4 15 Qb3+ Be6 17
Qa3 (17 Qc3 Qd6, threatening both Bxh2+ and b4) Qxa3 18 bxa3. White has
survived to the end-game, but Black has recovered his Pawn and has the
two Bishops, and drives the advantage home before White has a chance to
complete his development. 18 ... Be5 19 Rb1 (19 c3 Bc4 loses the
Exchange at once) Bxa2 20 Rb4 Bc4 21 d3 a5, and White loses the Exchange
without the slightest compensation.
b) 13 Re1 Rxf3! 14 gxf3 (after 14 Rxe4, Black preserves the Rook and
remains a piece ahead by the counterpin 14 ... Rf4!) Qg5+ and White is
helpless after either 15 Kh1 Qh5 or 15 Kf1 exf3.
12 ... c5 13 Qd5+ Be6 14 Qc6 fxe4 15 Qxe4
And White has maintained his extra Pawn after all, though Black still
has the positional edge.
15 ... Rae8 16 O-O
It is high time the King was off the file, though 16 Ng5 at once also
has its merits.
16 ... Qf7!
By which Black activates the Queen without losing the two Bishops. If
instead Qf6, then 17 Ng5 Bf5 (or d7 or c8, the point is that the B must
leave its diagonal) 18 Qd5+ Kh8 19 Ne4, exchanging a B.
17 Ng5 Qh5!
Depriving White of the time to exchange the B with the mate threat.
Other moves would be greatly inferior, especially as White manages to
exchange the lightsquare B then, meaning that a possible end-game will
not have the Bishops of opposite colors that would be of help to Black
(still a pawn down).
18 f4 Bc8
At this point the game appears to be relatively even. White still has
the extra Pawn, whereas Black has the two Bishops and strong attacking
prospects as well as having maintained a time advantage; White's QR and
darksquare B are still not yet developed, and will not develop this move
either, as White must find a safe place for his Queen.
Clearly White must hold the edge in an end-game (as I had previously
posited for the opening as a whole), while Black has a considerable
advantage for the middlegame to come.
In this, the variation somewhat resembles the exchange Lopez (in which
Black is positionally if not physically a Pawn down).
|
| | | | | |
Date: 09 Dec 2005 20:20:45
From: Amarande
Subject: Re: Parham Attack: Show me what's wrong with it.
|
And, of course, a possible further course of this variation, showing how
inexactitudes, especially on White's part can still lead to a loss.
(1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 Nf6 3.Qxe5+ Be7 4.Bb5 0-0 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Bxc6 dxc6 7.Nf3 Bd6
8.Qa5 Nxe4 9.Nxe4 Qe7 10.Qa4 b5 11.Qd4 f5 12.d3 c5 13.Qd5+ Be6 14.Qc6
fxe4 15.Qxe4 Rae8 16.0-0 Qf7 17.Ng5 Qh5 18.f4 Bc8)
19 Qd5+ Kh8 20 Bd2?
Such things as 20 Qf3 or 20 Rfe1 are really to be recommended here (in
particular, an exchange of Queens is likely to be disadvantageous for
Black at this point). At any rate he should not have allowed the Black
Rook into e2, which paralyzes his game and allows Black to regain his
Pawn and transition into a favorable ending, White thus failing to have
achieved anything of the Parham.
20 ... Re2 21 Rad1 Bg4 22 Rfe1
This Rook must be challenged.
22 ... h6! 23 h3 hxg5
If Black retreats the B, then 24 Qf3, with advantage.
24 hxg4 Qxg4 25 Qf3
This is not as strong as in the previous note as now Black has recovered
his pawn. But if e.g. 25 Qxg5? Rxg2+ and mate next, or 25 fxg5? Qg3 and
wins.
25 ... Qxf3 26 gxf3 Rxe1+ 27 Rxe1 gxf4
And now it is even Black who is a Pawn ahead.
What is interesting is that the endgame shows surprising typicality,
despite the wild antics of the opening.
28 c4?
White has already a disadvantageous game, and would be better served by
accepting this fact. The text attempts to fix the Black Pawns on black
squares, but leaves a weakness at d3 and d4 and seals the position,
allowing few chances for White while Black can still plan a breakthrough.
28 ... b4 29 b3 Kg8 30 Re4
White's best counterchances at this point come from continuing to fix
the Black Pawns, in order to retard the mobility of the B and thus hope
to secure some drawing chances.
30 ... g5
Black must make this move sooner or later, if he wishes to not have R or
K chained to the defense of f4. But the point is that a bad B is much
less weak against a B than an N, and White has no good way to exploit
the weaknesses, being unable to bring his R to e5 or e7. Additionally,
there is little White can do about Black being able to exploit his Pawn
majority with ... g4 (had he had a Knight, the endgame might well have
been drawn due to inadequate Black ability to control this square -
sometimes even a good B is not stronger than an N!).
31 Kf2 Kf7 32 Bc1
In order to activate the B on the only viable diagonal.
32 ... Kf6
Black must play this now, else there follows Bc1-b2-e5. Despite the
weakness of Black's B it should not be exchanged, as it performs
valuable duties in protecting the c5 and c7 pawns and keeping the White
Rook out.
33 Bb2+ Kf5 34 Re1
With no future on the e-file the Rook switches to the h-file, but
Black's Pawns are too well guarded.
34 ... g4! 35 fxg4+
White can no longer maintain the defensive bind. If for instance 35 Rh1
g3+ 36 Kg2 Re8, and White will soon lose another Pawn (37 Kf1 Re3
winning f3, or 37 Kg1 Re2 skewering the B and a2 pawn, or 37 Kh3 Re2 and
White must move the B and lose the a2 pawn, on account of 38 Rb1??
Rh2#). Thus he exchanges, in order to at least avoid two connected
passed Pawns and dissolve the weak Pawn on f3.
35 ... Kxg4
Of course the move is obvious but it is notable how much Black needs his
extra Pawn; if for instance 35 ... Kg5? 36 Kf3 and White may even win.
36 Re6 Kf5 37 Rh6 Rg8!
The check at f6 is not really any counterplay, and Black does not fear it.
38 Rf6+ Kg4 39 Rf7 Rg6
In order to further advance the Rook and King without any more annoying
counter checks.
40 Kg2 a6!
White's freedom of movement is extremely limited here, and while perhaps
not truly a desperate zugzwang situation most moves now lead to some
form of concession.
White surely cannot move the King (41 Kh2 f3+, or 41 Kf2 Rh6 threatening
...Rh2+), nor the Rook (after which Black can advance the f-pawn or play
...Kf5+). Therefore, he must either move the B or advance a Pawn.
41 Ba1
At least eliminating any possible skewers on the 2nd rank and keeping
the B on the long diagonal uninterrupted (which would not be the case
after 41 a3 bxa3, or 41 d4, or 41 Bc1).
41 ... Re6! 42 Rg7+ Kf5 43 Kf1
Else the invasions at e2 or e1 will be fatal.
43 ... Re3 44 d4 cxd4 45 Bxd4 Rd3
Gaining time for invading the underbelly.
46 Ba7
There is no saving the a-pawn; if 46 Ba1?? Rd1+, or if 46 Bb2 Rd2.
46 ... Rd1+ 47 Ke2 Ra1
Spoils of victory. There is no good defense, not that there was one
before this.
48 Kf3 Rxa2 49 c5 Be5 50 Rh7 a5
This is stronger than the mate threat by 50 ... Bd4, after which White
can drive back the King with 51 Rh5+ and Black has achieved little concrete.
51 Rh5+ Ke6 52 c6
Else Black will play this himself, after which the B is permanently shut in.
52 ... a4
Sticking to the guns. Much inferior is 52 ... Kd6 53 Bb8 Rb2 54 Bxc7+
Kxc7 55 Rxe5 Rxb3, and while Black still has a win in sight White still
can need some subduing. After the text there is nothing hanging and the
death knell soon heralds.
53 Ke4 Bg7 54 Bd4 Bxd4 55 Kxd4 axb3 56 Rh6+ Kf5 57 Rh1
If 57 Rh7 b2! 58 Rh1 Ra1.
57 ... b2 58 Rb1 f3 59 Ke3 Kg4 60 Kf2
Nor is anything to be done with Rook checks, e.g. 60 Rg1+ Kh4 61 Kxf3 Ra1.
60 ... Kf4
Zugzwang; after any White King or Rook move there follows 61 ... Ra1 at
last. Black wins.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 10 Dec 2005 13:54:12
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Claus-J=FCrgen_Heigl?=
Subject: Re: Parham Attack: Show me what's wrong with it.
|
Aande wrote:
> And, of course, a possible further course of this variation, showing how
> inexactitudes, especially on White's part can still lead to a loss.
>
> (1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 Nf6 3.Qxe5+ Be7 4.Bb5 0-0 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Bxc6 dxc6 7.Nf3 Bd6
> 8.Qa5
After 8. Qg5 Black will not get his pawn back. White's threat is d3 and
0-0 and he will be pretty much consolidated with pawn more.
I think the best that Black can do is to go for an attack against f2.
7...Ng4 8. Qg3 (perhaps 8. Qa5 is fine here because Black has let off
from e4) 8...f5 (Black needs to open up the position) 9. d3 (after 9.
exf5 Bxf5 10. d3 Bd6 11. Bf4 Re8+ 12. Kd2 Nxf2 13. Rhe1 Black has his
pawn back although probably not much of an advantage) 9...g5 (threat
Bd6, if 9...Bd6 10. Qh4 Qxh4 11. Nxh4 Nxh2 12. Nxf5 Bxf5 13. exf5 Rae8+
14. Ne4 Rxf5 (14...Ng4 15. f3 and 16. g4) 15. f3 and Black has trouble
with his knight) 10. exf5 Bxf5 11. Ne4 h5 (threat h4) 12. Nfxg5 Bxe4 13.
Nxe4 Bh4 14. Qh3 (the rook endgame after 14. Qxh4!? Qxh4 15. Bg5 Qxg5
16. Nxg5 Rae8+ 17. Ne4 Nxf2 18. Rf1 Nxe4 19. Rxf8+ Kxf8 20. dxe4 Rxe4+
21. Kf2 might be defendable for Black but it is a very safe way for
White to play for a win) 14...Bxf2+ 15. Kd1.
White still has a pawn more but some trouble to activate his Ra1. A plan
could be Bc1-d2-c3 followed by Kd1-c1-b1, a3 and Ka2. Black, after
securing his kingside (15...Rf5) should attack fast. A plan could be Qf8
(to secure the rook) followed by c5-c4. I'm not sure if Black has enough
compensation for his pawn, but some he has.
It looks to me that Black has not an easy time to show compensation for
his pawn in this line if White plays careful. 4...c6 or 5...c6 with the
idea of an early d5 and opening the center seems to be more logical for me.
A sample line: 5...c6 6. Be2 d5 7. d3 Bd6 8. Qg5 Re8 9. Be3 dxe4 10.
0-0-0 and the game should be roughly equal.
Claus-Juergen
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 21 May 2006 04:31:49
From: alexmagnus
Subject: Re: Parham Attack: Show me what's wrong with it.
|
Curiously enough I was the one who posted 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 Nf6 3.Qxe5+ Be
4.Bb5 0-0 as the refutation of the Parham Attack. But today I seem t
have found a refutation of my refutation. On move 4, white should pla
4.d3! The difference to the line above is that after 4...Nc6 5.Qg3 0-
6.Be2 black has no Nh5 ideas which are so annoying in the first line
--
alexmagnus
|
| | | | |
Date: 08 Dec 2005 15:26:41
From: Major Cat
Subject: Re: Parham Attack: Show me what's wrong with it.
|
Ron wrote:
>
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Aande <[email protected]> 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.
Questions. Is a pawn sacrifice the same
thing as hanging a pawn or does the per-
ceived context matter? Moreover, is a
gambit synonymous with any pawn sacrifice
whatsoever?
>
> -Ron
Regards,
Major Cat
|
| | | | | |
Date: 09 Dec 2005 21:41:26
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Parham Attack: Show me what's wrong with it.
|
>> Among class players, who hang pawns all the time, it's not that big a
>> deal being a pawn down if you have activity.
>
> Questions. Is a pawn sacrifice the same
> thing as hanging a pawn or does the per-
> ceived context matter? Moreover, is a
> gambit synonymous with any pawn sacrifice
> whatsoever?
Hanging a pawn means you lost a pawn, and the game, if everything else is
equal.
Sacrificing a pawn means you gave up a pawn for a positional or long-term
tactical advantage, where your attack makes the extra material moot. If you
can see ahead to the recovery of the pawn, that's more of a combination.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 08 Dec 2005 23:10:12
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Parham Attack: Show me what's wrong with it.
|
In article <[email protected] >, Major Cat <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Questions. Is a pawn sacrifice the same
> thing as hanging a pawn or does the per-
> ceived context matter? Moreover, is a
> gambit synonymous with any pawn sacrifice
> whatsoever?
A gambit is a pawn sacrifice in the opening.
There is a difference between "hanging" a pawn and "sacrificing" one.
When you sacrifice a pawn, you get something concrete in return -
activity, open lines, a development advantage, pressure, etc.
When you hang a pawn, you don't.
Although I'll admit that there are many hung pawns which have some
small, trivial amount of compensation.
-Ron
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 08 Dec 2005 19:25:49
From: Major Cat
Subject: Re: Parham Attack: Show me what's wrong with it.
|
Thank you so much. I am glad to
see some general agreement here! 8 >)
Ron wrote:
>
> In article <[email protected]>, Major Cat <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > Questions. Is a pawn sacrifice the same
> > thing as hanging a pawn or does the per-
> > ceived context matter? Moreover, is a
> > gambit synonymous with any pawn sacrifice
> > whatsoever?
>
> A gambit is a pawn sacrifice in the opening.
>
> There is a difference between "hanging" a pawn and "sacrificing" one.
> When you sacrifice a pawn, you get something concrete in return -
> activity, open lines, a development advantage, pressure, etc.
>
> When you hang a pawn, you don't.
>
> Although I'll admit that there are many hung pawns which have some
> small, trivial amount of compensation.
>
> -Ron
Regards,
Major Cat
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Dec 2005 14:33:07
From: Major Cat
Subject: Re: Parham Attack: Show me what's wrong with it.
|
Aande wrote:
>
> [email protected] 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.
Bringing generally accepted opening theory
to bear on actual OTB chess play will always
be a thorny endeavor, full of contradictions.
To this date, no one has found a...refutation
of Lasker's "unscientific" notions!
>
> '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
Which is quite appropriate for theorists.
However, their "objective" refutations and
the actual OTB play refutations may not co-
incide beacause "ceteris paribus" is seldom
the case...
> (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
> ...)
Do blitzers really _need_ that much opening
theory? I mean, some of them do "practice"
their opening lines playing blitz but this
presupposes an obliging opponent. If the op-
ponent abandons the "practice" early on, does
this give the "orthodox" player an advantage
(refutation?) that can be _practically _pursued
in the context of very quick play?
>
> 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.
This is a very interesting point. Some
posters have suggested that computer
programs are particularly adept at nul-
lifying such temporary advantages through
exact defensive tactics. Once the tide
turns, well... 8 >)
>
> 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
This indicates, I should think, that the
"shallower" a computer program's tactical
calculations the more likely it is that it
would fall victim to an opponent's temporary
advantage.
Regards,
Major Cat
|
| |
Date: 06 Dec 2005 21:47:46
From:
Subject: Re: Parham Attack: Show me what's wrong with it.
|
" 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.
|
| |
Date: 06 Dec 2005 09:19:45
From: alexmagnus
Subject: Re: Parham Attack: Show me what's wrong with it.
|
That's what's wrong: 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 Nf6! 3.Qxe5+ Be7 4.Bb5 0-0! an
black's development advantage is huge
--
alexmagnus
|
| |
Date: 25 Sep 2005 12:47:23
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Parham Attack: Show me what's wrong with it.
|
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).
|
| |
Date: 22 Sep 2005 19:26:47
From: gnohmon
Subject: Re: Parham Attack: Show me what's wrong with it.
|
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.
|
| |
Date: 19 Sep 2005 22:06:52
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: Parham Attack: Show me what's wrong with it.
|
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
|
|
