Saturday, February 04, 2006

Matrix Chess

Anyone ever heard of this guy, Bernard Parham? He has a chess system called the "Matrix." He opens games with a quick Qh5, and tries to use math and probability to win the game. Click here for more about his system. Might be good for some knights to try...

18 Comments:

At 8:32 PM, Blogger Edwin 'dutchdefence' Meyer said...

Sure i'll try and play 2.Qh5...

When i am rated 2200+ perhaps... Just like he is. Sure! It is a very interesting theory and all. But don't you see that players who can play interesting games with openings like that are allready masters of some kind? Or atleast high rated. Nakamura sometimes likes to surprise his opponents with 2.Qh5. You defenitly gotta know what you're doing if you're trying to pull off an interesting game when playing 2.Qh5.

 
At 3:08 AM, Blogger Druss said...

I've read about Matrix Chess before, but I've never really understood it. This interview doesn't really explain how to use it either.

Might work. Might not. But it is difficult to tell when the underlying details aren't revealed.

 
At 6:18 AM, Blogger funkyfantom said...

2.Qh5 is not a bad move, but is inferior to white's other 2nd move choices, which is why GM's never play it against other GM's.

I've had it played against me by similarly rated opponents, and I have a strong plus score against it.

But that is a separate issue from this Matrix nonsense. It is simply a load of crap. There are many good street players with claims of weird systems. They do it to get attention.

If they are good players, they owe that to having lots of playing experience, owing to lots of time in their lives to play chess.

With all the good chess literature out there, it seems like a waste of time to bother with the crackpot stuff.

 
At 7:11 AM, Blogger CelticDeath said...

It's an interesting theory, but I don't see how it could be put to much practical use.

 
At 8:00 AM, Blogger Blue Devil Knight said...

I'd like to see the mathematics. It sounds like BS to me. If vector analysis was that helpful in chess, the chess computers would be exploiting it. Funkyfantom's analysis seems right on. I especially like that he thinks he has a trademark on the word 'Matrix.' That is like trying to trademark the word 'integral.'

I also love that the background image on the site is a bunch of pot leaves.

The following quote is great:
I also asked him if there was any connection with his system to the message in the "Matrix" movies and he stated that there is a connection, but that information would be revealed later.

Deep stuff. Do you want to take the black pill, or the white pill?

I especially like the pseudo-mathematical tone of the whole thing:
He explained that in the Matrix system, the Bishop is just as powerful as the Rook because it can support its Queen in delivering the quickest checkmate possible (QED).

Sweet. Anything with 'QED' written after it must be true!

I think that this shows that it doesn't really matter what opening system you pick. If you know it well, you will get people off book very quickly, and get down to the nuts of the game.

 
At 6:03 AM, Blogger funkyfantom said...

hello general. Acknowledging your hello on FICS last night. Was too wrapped up in a game to talk, unfortunately.

 
At 2:43 PM, Blogger St. Patzer said...

Totally agree, if there was any mathematical basis to this rubbish it would have been inferred by computer analysis probably decades ago.

Where did he get these amazing insights ? the Oracle ?

 
At 6:30 PM, Blogger Sancho Pawnza said...

Well you have to look at what he obtains.
1. You have entered into his opening system like or not.
2. You will spend a lot of time on your clock if you don't have a line prepped for it.
3. I'm sure he has mapped out plans for every major response Black can play.
4. He enjoys it.

Bottom line is to learn your stuff better than your opponent.

 
At 2:02 PM, Blogger funkyfantom said...

By the way, to claim that a bishop and rook have the same material value ( as the Matrix guy does ) is just ridiculous.

The relative values of the pieces have been established for centuries.

Many top chess players like Botvinnik and Lasker were also mathematically trained, and would have challenged these values if they were wrong.

International Master Larry Kaufman is also a mathematician and computer chess expert, and has done serious statistical analysis of the piece values ( here on Dan Heisman's web site is a reprint of the article;)

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/danheisman/Articles/evaluation_of_material_imbalance.htm

 
At 3:35 PM, Blogger Sancho Pawnza said...

funkyfantom,
Well the good thing is that anyone who beats his system (Bernard Parham) can name their defense as they wish.

One time we had a "street player" come into the club. The guy was a decent player with a ton of creative names for his off-beat lines he played. (The Steel Wall, The Hammer, etc.) After our game which he lost, he asked me what I called the opening I just played against him. I replied "I call that the Ass Buster 1" which made both of us chuckle.

 
At 10:11 PM, Blogger Blue Devil Knight said...

The Neo Defense.

 
At 2:32 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I've been playing matrix chess for years, and it's the only reason why I've gone from 1300 to 2300 now. Don't trash talk the system because if the player is playing it correctly, they're gonna spank you with it. It's just another system like anything else, and OF COURSE it's not totally fail-proof and you can't be a patzer and expect to win all your games. Make fun all you want, I'll see your unprepared ass in a tournament...

 
At 2:33 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I've been playing matrix chess for years, and it's the only reason why I've gone from 1300 to 2300 now. Don't trash talk the system because if the player is playing it correctly, they're gonna spank you with it. It's just another system like anything else, and OF COURSE it's not totally fail-proof and you can't be a patzer and expect to win all your games. Make fun all you want, I'll see your unprepared ass in a tournament...

 
At 2:07 PM, Blogger David said...

Parham has parleyed 2 Qc5 since the 1960s, though even he doesn't play it very often in tournaments. The "chess matrix" is just a systematic way of evaluating every possible move for a given position, nothing more.

 
At 6:20 PM, Anonymous ParhamStudent said...

I studied under Parham for 8 years, and there is much more to the system than just the matrix. Indexing is the key to the matrix style of play. Q5 will most often win against 95% of players out there if white knows how to properly index his situation. Bernard is a challenging coach pushing modern chess theory beyond the ritualistic "book" fashions. If you didn't know Q5 is the Parham attack :)

should you care to know anymore about Bernard or his noted Q5 offense my email is scratching@itchybooty.com
yes its real...

 
At 6:41 PM, Blogger Johnny said...

Of course it beats 95% of players as 95% of players are sub masters. He could beat 95% of players with 1.a3 who cares.

He's a tactical attacking master who is gifted enough to screw around like this. How's his endgame technique or technique in general? He has none - keep pieces on the board and attack is his motto.

Masters like this are simply strong amateur/club players, I have no respect for them. After their tactics fail I get an endgame when they might as well resign immediately -- it's a joke.

 
At 7:27 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your a joke, any fool that can flippantly claim that they are better than someone without every playing them nor studying with them is a waste of time even reading your comment. So you are the GM of all time with the ability to call out great players. Go back to reading about chess theory written by the ones promoting it and moving it into the future. Such a fake, reads his moves from a book and says "if i can only get the end game .... then ill show you, especially GM's". Parham would destroy you kid @Johnny.

 
At 10:11 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

There's more info on it here.

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-openings/matrix-chess

 

Post a Comment

<< Home