Talk:Danvers Opening

2. g6??
Can we add a section about the popular blunder 2. g6?? which leads to 3. Qxe5+, winning the rook. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteelerFan1933 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

old talk
(12-02-06) additional links : http://chessmind.powerblogs.com/files/more_qh5_analysis.htm, http://chessmind.powerblogs.com/posts/1114752346.shtml


 * The Talking Drum featuring Bernard Parham

I'm not sure this link belongs in this article. Maybe it should go in an article on the Matrix system or on Bernard Parham? --Malathion 03:35, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I see your point, in that the article is not primarily about the Parham Attack as such -- so, particularly since there's no Wikipedia article on Parham, I moved the link to the article up into the text so that it is a link from "Bernard Parham." Hope that helps. Krakatoa 08:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

By the way: I read somewhere that Nakamura said he played the opening on the suggestion of Jason Doss, another Indiana chessplayer who I presume is related to Parham. I'll see if I can find a source for that. --Malathion 09:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Jason Doss as a child used to study Qh5 and the chess matrix from Bernie. The tournament scene in Indiana sees a great deal of Qh5 from its younger players, thanks to Parham. Occasionally a younger student will be caught off guard by the move 1. e4 nf6 2. Qh5? ... always good for a laugh. I recommend looking at the moves 1. e4 e5 2. Qh5 Nc6 3. Bc4 g6 4. Qf3 f5!? if white has never seen this black will get an amazing position, but as far as being sound? - Falsemate 03:25, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Since you edited your comment after I posted mine, I removed it. ⟳ ausa کui × 09:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

...Nf6? After the variation 1.e4 e5 2. Qh5 Nf6 3. Qxe5+ Be7 Parham will play 4. d3 ... He plans on dropping the Queen to g3 and putting the Bishop on e2 to prevent any kind of pin on the e4 pawn with the king. Black will remain a pawn down with difficulties catleing long, and whites pieces are all pointed at the Kingside. A common variations is 1.e4 e5 2. Qh5 Nf6 3. Qxe5+ Be7 4. d3 Nc6 5. Qg3 0-0 6. Be2 with the threat of Bh6 as Nh5 can no longer hold. (Falsemate 02:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC))


 * I'd be happy if he would log on to FICS sometime and play vs Shredder in this line. Shredder thinks 5...0-0 is a big mistake, because 5...d5 leaves black with a big advantage. ⟳ ausa کui × 03:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

2. Bd6!?
This move is something I've been looking at for a while. It's true, the Bishop is put on a weakish square, but it means that the Q can go to e7 without blocking it and that the N can go to f6 with tempo. For example: 1. e4 e5 2. Qh5 Bd6!? 3. Bc4 Qe7 4. Nf3 Nf6 5. Qh4 Bc5 6. Qg3 d6 7. Qxg7? Rg8 8. Qh6 Bxf2+! 9. Kf1 Rg6 0-1 24.226.77.23 (talk) 13:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Until we have a source for Bd6 it would be a problem of no original research. I setup the board and looked at this it doesn't seem a very good idea. After Bd6 the bishop has to move again later at the cost of a tempo. In the line given Qg3 is an illogical waste of move having moved the queen to h4 on the previous move. 5. Qg5 would seem a more consistent move when 5...Nxe4 is met with Qxg7 with advantage to white. 5...O-O and White can play 6. d3, 6. O-O or 6. Nc3 when Black can't break in the center until the Bishop is moved from d6. SunCreator (talk) 18:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Um. 5. Qg5, Bxf2+. But really, why is any of this discussion here? No one cares what some random person has been "looking at for quite a while"; this is an encyclopedia, not an analysis page. -- 98.108.220.157 (talk) 04:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The annoying thing is, no one in history has ever taken a serious look at this move. It can't be as bad as 2...Nf6 can it? 24.226.77.23 (talk) 13:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Similar ideas have caught on in other openings in recent years, e.g. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bb5 Bd6!?, which GM Larry Kaufman recommends in his excellent book The Chess Advantage in Black and White. Black will disentangle with ...0-0, ...Re8, ...Bf8, and ...d6; in some lines he leaves the bishop at d6 and plays ...b6 and ...Bb7. There is also 1.b3 e5 2.Bb2 Nc6 3.e3 Nf6 4.Bb5 Bd6!?, a fashionable move that according to IM Richard Palliser had as of 2006 scored 60% for Black. Beating Unusual Chess Openings, p. 136. It was introduced in Suhle-Adolf Anderssen, Breslau 1859. There is also a line against the Evans Gambit called the "Stoneware Defense" after the Boston players (first name?) Stone and Preston Ware. See T.D. Harding and G.S. Botterill, The Italian Game, p. 61. Some dude named Harry Nelson Pillsbury played it against both Emanuel Schiffers and Henry Bird at Hastings 1895, beating both with ease. See Horace Cheshire, The Hastings Tournament 1895, pp. 132-33, 229-30. A good thing, too, since Pillsbury only won the tournament by half a point (Pillsbury 16.5, Chigorin 16, Lasker 15.5, etc.). So just as we shouldn't be too dismissive of 2.Qh5, we shouldn't be too dismissive of 2...Bd6. But yes, until some notable player plays it or at least advocates it it would be OR, as SunCreator said. Krakatoa (talk) 08:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Players' ages are irrelevant and should be deleted
The article includes this: "Hikaru Nakamura, the 17-year-old GM and U.S. champion, played it as White against 28-year-old Indian GM Krishnan Sasikiran at the May 2005 Sigeman Tournament in Copenhagen/Malmö, Denmark." (Emphasis added.) Apparently an anon put in the ages, someone deleted them, and now the anon reverted the change, saying this should be taken to talk before being re-reverted. Fine. The players' ages are irrelevant and should be deleted. If I see that such-and-such player has played a move and want to know the significance of that, what is relevant is how strong the player is. That is taken care of here by the information that both these players are GMs, and that Nakamura is the U.S. champion. If I want to know more about either player, I can click on the wiki-link for him. What their respective ages are is not important. If we habitually inserted players' ages, articles would become much longer, to no benefit. "The 43-year-old xxxx successfully essayed such-and-such against the 25-year-old yyyy.", etc., etc. Who cares? The ages should be taken out. Krakatoa (talk) 16:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Krakatoa; the players' ages are irrelevant here. If we had a WP:RS reliable source commenting on the significance of their ages in this context inclusion would be appropriate, otherwise it is WP:UNDO undo weight.  Presumably we're supposed to draw some inference based on their ages, but it is unstated and the point is unclear. Quale (talk) 04:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. In some situations it would be notable to mention Nakamura's age (i.e. being a minor), but not significant here.  And the other one is completely irrevelant.  Consensus - I'll delete them.  Bubba73 (talk), 05:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm the anon who originally put in Sasikiran's age. The reason I inserted it was that the article originally included Nakamura's age, but not Sasikiran's. There seemed to be no reason to include the age of one but not the other, but rather than remove Nakamura's age completely, which would be a better, but more difficult change to defend, I inserted Sasikiran's age in order to to at least make the article consistent for both players. What actually was deleted (and then reverted by myself, as Krakatoa mentions) was Sasikiran's but not Nakamura's age, rather than, as Krakatoa seems to have mistakenly assumed, both ages. Of course, the removal of both ages is the best possible outcome, as the ages of the players are irrelevent to the article. So I think Krakatoa may have misinterpereted my edit back in 2009, but the eventual result was the right one anyway. 203.24.97.9 (talk) 09:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

"Uncomfortable contortions"?
I believe this is original research (and wrong original research at that). Anonywiki (talk) 02:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No source is given, not even for the supposed name "Kiddie Countergambit". Since the rest of the article is fairly reasonably sourced, I agree with you and think the entire section can be removed.  The same with "Mellon Gambit".  So-called "Named variations" should be sourced or removed.  Quale (talk) 05:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Good information gone
"Mellon Gambit" is from Schiller's "Gambit Chess Openings" tome. It's not a particularly good line for either player, but anyway the name is published there. The "Kiddie Countergambit" isn't covered in that work. That is the name commonly used for 2... Nf6, though. Do we have to find someone who uses it in a book before that information goes into an encyclopedia? First hand knowledge of common conventions isn't enough? The name is used in a lot of web pages, but not all web pages are reliable.

I don't see why the information that 2. Nf6 is Shredder's first choice was removed. Houdini likes the move too, though it likes other moves better. Engines are famously critical of gambits so when an engine rates a gambit highly that is important information about that gambit. Write the chess engine itself as the source if it's important for you to have the primary source written up right. What's there now, "speculative," suggests the gambit is not very good, when it's actual one of Black's best options in the position.

Nakamura's age when he liked 2. Qh5 does seem relevant as his endorsement can be attributed to his youth. I don't get the removal of a lot of good information from these pages.

76.210.63.22 (talk) 05:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Naming; Why is it called the "Parham Attack"?

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was moved by Chessplayerlev to Wayward Queen Attack. Eventually some sort of agreement was reached that Schiller's term for the opening is acceptable if not entirely ideal. Sjakkalle (Check!)  19:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Can anyone explain the source for it being called a "Parham Attack" aside from a single Internet link on ChessDrum, which is a really bad and factually inaccurate source? It does not appear by this name in any credible book, magazine article, or site. I have seen "Patzer Opening" and other names, but not "Parham Attack" anywhere else.ChessPlayerLev (talk) 22:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It was named after Bernard Parham. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Right, and I'm wondering whether there is a single credible source for that? Does a single opening book or reputable publication call it the "Parham Attack"? ChessPlayerLev (talk) 00:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I thought I had seen it, but I couldn't find one. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I think ChessPlayerLev is probably right. Dealing with this may be difficult, as sources for most unusual openings like this one tend to be quite poor and the article has been at this title for some time.  I don't have a good suggestion, but the brilliance of the wiki is that someone else may have an idea that eludes me. Quale (talk) 04:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I would be fine with changing the title to "The Patzer Opening" (which I have found a few credible sources referring to 1. e4 e5 2. Qh5 as), and having "The Parham Attack" as one of the alternate names. (Which I have found as many credible sources for as "The Danvers Attack"...zero)ChessPlayerLev (talk) 22:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I have not found a reference. I thought that Unorthodox chess openings by Eric Shiller was likely to have it.  I don't have the book, but the table of contents and the index is available at Amazon, and it isn't in there. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 22:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Bubba, I do have the book (Unorthodox Chess Openings, Schiller, 1998), and he has the opening on pp. 247-249 (under chapter "King Pawn Game", starting p. 230). It is named: "Wayward Queen Attack". (Schiller harshly disapproves the opening, and quotes games from 1994 Nat'l Elementary School Ch., and 1991 World Junior Ch.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 9:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * From the article author, 2005: Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I was only looking to the parts of the book available on Amazon. What the author of this article told Qualye is quite interesting - he says that me made up the name "Parham attack".  If so, then it must go! But then later he says that he found others using it on the internet.  I hope they didn't pick it up from this article.  The problem with finding it on the internet is that we have to be sure that it was before this article - otherwise they might have gotten the name from this article. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The editor that started the article is now, who is a legitimate chess editor and a national master. He should be asked about the origins of the name.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes! (I see that now, a username change.) His statement to Quale does suggest the name Parham Attack was used on Internet preceding the article. This is interesting, too! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I have seen several references to a "Parham Attack" in Internet searches, but in every case, they are quoting Wikipedia and many even express skepticism over the nomenclature. It's a bit amusing/funny that a largely random decision to call 1. e4 e5 2. Qh5 the "Parham Attack" back in 2005 on Wikipiedia has led to a number of blogs/articles on the subject blindly referring to it as the same!ChessPlayerLev (talk) 05:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It's referred to as "Patzer Opening" by http://www.365chess.com/opening.php?m=4&n=332&ms=e4.e5.Qh5&ns=3.5.332, which is a fairly credible database and opening explorer, at the very least. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 23:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 'Parham Attack' reference: Indianapolis Monthly, January 2007, page 74. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=RB0DAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA74&dq=parham%20attack&pg=PA74#v=onepage&q&f=false Regards, SunCreator (talk) 10:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not the most credible source, I'm afraid. It's a glowing human interest story about Bernard Parham, but is absolutely awful when it comes to the actual facts.  Saying the "matrix system" of recording games was "revolutionary" is ridiculous and inaccurate, considering no one actually uses it, and it's basically the exact same as the algebraic system except with different symbols for the pieces.  (Read what myself and Bubba wrote on the AfD discussion for Bernard Parham)  Then, saying that Parham won the Indiana State Championship with his "revolutionary ideas" is laughable, considering the guy was barely even national master strength, and it's not exactly a major chess accomplishment, either.  They also claim Parham "beat future world champion Bobby Fischer 42 years ago in a match in New Olreans".  Even if one assumes they mistakenly used the word "match" instead of "game", I still think this is pure BS.  I have never, ever read about this anywhere.  Maybe he won a blitz game from Fischer, but then again, there were good "A" players who have done this (and it was actually documented), and other "A" players and experts (slightly weaker than my own strength) who have managed draws or wins against world champions, too.  The article was also written AFTER the Wikipedia entry, and seems to be largely based on Bernard Parham's own claims and words.  In other words, it's factually inaccurate and extremely biased.ChessPlayerLev (talk) 23:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The win over Fischer might have been a simul (if true), but the game is not known at List of people who have beaten Bobby Fischer in chess. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Fenner Parham (S) (1964 Simul tour) is listed in the article sec Exhibition and offhand games. There's some discussion whether it was Fenner or Bernard who actually played the game at Kibitzer's Corner on chessgames.com. Ditto here. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * ChessPlayerLev, the Indianapolis Monthly source found by SunCreator satisfies your complaint that the name Parham Attack "does not appear by this name in any credible book, magazine article, or site." (The article is based on an interview with the subject. Whether the Matrix system is "revolutionary" or not for being based on geometric patterns, or for being popular or accepted, is just semantics. If the interviewee wants to credit his win of the Indiana State Championship to a magazine interviewer due to "using his lucky pen" to record his games, that claim in the magazine article of course doesn't make it true, it reflects the interview with the subject. When you criticize his winning the Indiana State Championship on the basis his rating wasn't very much over national master, or because winning it was "not a major accomplishment", those arguments belong over at the AfD on the Bernard Parham BLP article, not here. Ditto whether it was he or his uncle who beat Fischer in the 1964 simul game.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The point I was making was that the source is not credible. Hence why I noted how ridiculous its claims about the matrix system are, and the dubious "win" over Fischer (a simul victory?  That's even more worthless than a casual blitz game) If Parham himself told the interviewer the opening was called "The Parham Attack" or if the journalist simply copied it off the Wikipedia article (recall that the article was written in January 2007, and the Wikipedia entry was made in 2005), who cares?  It's not an indication of anything.


 * I question the logic here. The point about a simul win against Fischer being "worthless" in your view, is for what purpose? To discredit the Indianapolis Monthly magazine source? Thereby discrediting the reference to name "Parham Attack"? If that is your logic, then it's based on your opinion that a simul win against Fischer is a "worthless" achievement. I doubt you'd find many serious players supporting that position, I certainly don't. And as Bubba pointed out, there is probably sufficient reason to reject the source for the purpose of opening name confirmation, that has nothing to do with whether a simul win is a worthy achievement or not, so I don't see the point to go into emotional non-arguments in any event. Please explain your logic. (And please try and tone down the rhetoric -- too many "That's ridiculous", "That's laughable", etc. from you. Those are non-arguments and don't usefully contribute.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Lev, a simul victory isn't excluded from being called a win of a game against a player. That is why simul and even off-hand games are listed in article List of people who have beaten Bobby Fischer in chess. Do you have a supposition that the use of word "win" in the Monthly article was somehow bent on misleading? Or what? I really don't know what your line of thinking is. (Please explain why you put the word in quotes. The win is a documented fact. Someone recorded as Fenner Parham beat Fischer in that simul. It's a fact.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Look, there are a lot of REALLY garbage articles about chess in larger newspapers as general interest stories. I remember my local newspaper referring to a local chess teacher who was a "C" player (rated 1500) incorrectly stating that he was an "A" player (rated 1800-1999), and that this "was just slightly weaker than a GM".  That's why it's really important to make sure the sources are legitimate and written by people who know what they're writing about.  Anyways, I left a message on 's page, so hopefully he can shed some more light on this.  ChessPlayerLev (talk) 01:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We can't use any source like that written after this article went up on Wikipedia for the name, since it may have gotten it from Wikipedia. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I accept Bubba's logic. But not yours, Lev. (You are asserting the Monthly magazine source is "not legitimate" and "not written by someone who knows what they're writing about", but, you have no facts to make that assertion, at least, you've presented no factual refutation here, only "That's laughable", etc., non-arguments.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I need a "factual refutation" of the statement that matrix notation is "revolutionary"?! I can't disprove something that doesn't exist! Same goes for Parham's alleged victory over Fischer.  Also, no one uses matrix notation and it's the exact same as algebraic notation.  Those are actual facts.  The whole article is bunk for anyone who knows anything about chess.  It's a human interest piece by a random reporter.  Ergo, not a credible source for deciding questions of chess history and nomenclature.  ChessPlayerLev (talk) 04:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, am not asking you to prove the unprovable. Am asking that if you make argument, make one that consists of other than your shrill opinions about how "ridiculous" or "laughable" or how much "bunk" you think something is. Your hyperbole is tiresome. To tell honestly, I suspect too, that the interview piece was a fluff piece. The difference is that you insist that it is, and further insist we all agree with you, when in fact all you have to go on, like me, is suspicion. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Except I have already provided abundant reasons for why I believe this, and which you continue to ignore in favor of personal attacks. Matrix notation is not used by anyone.  It's not "revolutionary".  In fact, it's almost identical to algebraic notation.  Parham never beat Fischer in a "match".  In fact, he probably didn't even beat him in a single game, even a casual one.  Thus, the article is not a reliable source when it comes to settling a serious matter of chess history/nomenclature.  End of story.  Again, I can't disprove something that doesn't exist.  That's impossible.


 * One more thing, Ihardlythinkso. I am becoming very tired of your constant personal attacks and insults every single time I write anything in a Chess Talk page or try to update a page that you're watching.  I have ignored it for a while, but I suggest you knock it off.  Keep your replies to the chess subject at hand.ChessPlayerLev (talk) 08:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * What you've provided, is just shrill opinion, and rhetoric. At Paul Morphy you insisted the Silman quote was clear and unambiguous, kept repeating that, and were dumbfounded why I disagreed. You said "no matter how many times you say [the quote is ambiguous]" wouldn't "change the fact" it was clear and obvious. And what happened to your shrill opinion then? You had more shrill opinion at Paris Defence, insisting at AfD it "wasn't an opening at all". You were disproven again. Do you learn anything from these experiences, Lev? Because you continue to exhibit the same shrill, opinion-centered, aggressive style here. So if you are "becoming very tired" of my opposes of the product of your shrill, opinion-centered, aggressive, and reckless debating style, then good. I look only at your arguments, Lev, and if I see only reckless, aggressive opinion, I oppose. (So get used to it, or do better.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree the Monthly article is no basis for naming the opening "Parham Attack". (It's an interview piece, not a research article.) But there's no doubt Parham has been advocate and practitioner; the article at least would support his mention. Krakatoa has already made himself clear in the Talk archive above, I don't know that he'd have any more to add. Schiller's book uses "Wayward Queen Attack". 365chess uses "Patzer Opening". Are those the only WP-supportable choices, because they have RSs? (This editor is comfortable with any name, including the current one.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Rare openings tend to get a lot of names attached to them, see 1.Nc3 for an extreme example of this. Chess opening names are not official, even 1.e4 c5 isn't "officially" called the "Sicilian Defense", if there is anything official (in the sense of being used in FIDE publications) it is "B20". I see that "Parham Attack" is used on several discussion boards and so on, so I don't think the name is entirely made up, but life would be easier if a term for the opening were in a reliable publication. I think there are reasonable arguments on both sides here. However, I am concerned if "Patzer Opening" is a neutral enough title, since "patzer" is slang for a weak player. There is at least one grandmaster, Hikaru Nakamura who has considered the move to be a reasonable try and who would probably disagree that 2.Qh5 is a move for patzers. Sjakkalle (Check!)  15:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Totally agree. Although no one (short of Parham) contends 2.Qh5 is major contribution to theory, Nakamura said "I have analyzed this line thoroughly", and, "I do believe that 2.Qh5 is a playable move". He is ranked 7th (or is it 5th now?) in the world, so maybe his opinion is a little better than what User:ChessPlayerLev tells us is so on the ProjChess page: "2. Qh5?! is a silly move". Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * If Schiller refers to it as the "Wayward Queen Attack" in an actual book of his, then that is by far the most reputable source we have come across. I would be fine with changing the article's main name to "Wayward Queen Attack" and then listing "Parham Attack" as a subsidiary, alternate name.  And sure, 1. e4 e5 2. Qh5?! is playable.  (Hence my dubious sign and not an actual question mark)  However, it cedes the advantage of the first move and even gives Black a tiny edge under ideal play from both sides.  (Indeed, GM Nakamura LOST with this opening against an opponent rated roughly the same as him at the time, GM Sasikiran.ChessPlayerLev (talk) 23:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Lev, you asserted the move was "a silly move". (Do you think Nakamura would agree with that? Also, pointing out that Nakamura lost vs Sasikiran cannot be a dig against the opening, as you imply; Nakamura blamed his middlegame mistake for his loss, not the opening choice. [Did you read the article & the interview?])


 * Am okay with "Wayward Queen Attack". (But just an aside, did you see the references to bad reviews for that book? [I'm even wondering if I should use that book as RS for adding other opening name synonyms to "Chess openings named after xxx" articles, etc., as a result. But I do see some detailed research in the book, so think it deserves better than the blunt summary eval from Myers.]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know whether Nakamura would agree or disagree, but top players experiment with inferior openings all the time, either as a surprise weapon or simply to unbalance the position. I also didn't blame Naka's loss solely on the opening (hardly any openings, even the worst ones, lead to a theoretical loss), but it certainly made things harder on him than say, his usual Ruy Lopez.  The guy loses exceptionally rarely with the White pieces, even against the world's very best, and the opening played a part in the defeat.  Anyways, this isn't about the quality of 1. e4 e5 2. Qh5?!, but rather, its naming.


 * While I am aware of the criticisms against Schiller's books and feel some of it is warranted, he is still the most reliable source we have, by far. A master-strength player during his prime, a notable chess author and teacher, an international tournament arbiter, etc.  That's certainly more reliable than a Geocities site riddled with factual errors.  ChessPlayerLev (talk) 00:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok. (I'll start using the Schiller book, then. There are a lot of names in the book, and if it is okay RS, would like to start adding them.) p.s. Am confident Nakamura would disagree on "silly" describing 2.Qh5. (The point is, that changed my mind, per Sjakkalle, why I think all names are not equally appropriate, e.g. "Patzer Opening", ala 365chess.com, for future new article title.) Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding the bad reviews of Unorthodox Chess Openings, I will also refer to Baburin's review which is not favorable, but does mention some redeeming qualities as well. I think that review is more helpful than Tony Miles' review. "Wayward Queen Attack" is fine with me. Sjakkalle (Check!)  05:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

MCO 16
If MCO 16th edition, I guess it is to be released sometime after December, contains entry "Parham Attack", um, it seems that would trump the Schiller source. (Big "if", I heard it on a blog, and don't entirely discount it, even though I don't know how the blogger could obtain that pre-print info.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Dead Link
^ Hans Ree, Perils of the Sea. ChessCafe.com. Retrieved on 2009-02-06. The link to "Perils of the Sea" is dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.137.78 (talk) 21:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing
Any alternative names for this opening need to be sourced, preferably from a reputable chess publication, not from someone's blog. To be honest I'm in favour of deleting this article. MaxBrowne (talk) 06:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Can't really use Bill Wall (self-published, unreliable etc) but he might be able to point us towards other sources. https://web.archive.org/web/20091019213120/http://geocities.com/siliconvalley/lab/7378/qh5.htm MaxBrowne (talk) 06:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Re-opening the debate about the name
The name "Danvers Opening" can be sourced from the American Chess Bulletin as reported by Edward Winter. This strikes me as a far more credible source than anything by Schiller or Cardoza Publishing. MaxBrowne (talk) 05:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Danvers Opening. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070928192919/http://www.intakeweekly.com/articles/3/026400-6803-160.html to http://www.intakeweekly.com/articles/3/026400-6803-160.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Danvers Opening. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120910060728/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hans48.txt to http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hans48.txt

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Alternative Names
As content creator, I object to the move of the article ‘Bernard Parham’ to draftspace. Unfortunately, I have been unable to figure how to move this article back to mainspace. Perhaps someone can help me.

Nevertheless, I have performed exact Google searches for the following phrases. Hits are in parentheses: 1) Parham Attack/Parham opening (3,710) 2) Wayward Queen Attack/Opening (3,638) 3) Danvers Attack/Opening (2,976) 4) Patzer Opening (1,382)

Calling this chess opening the 'Danvers Opening' is sub-optimal, especially in view of the fact that the overwhelming majority of living chess players refer to this opening as the ‘Parham Attack’. I find it curious that the contribution of National Master, Bernard Parham, who is Black, have been minimized. The other terms are archaic, pretentious, quirky and bizarre and appear primarily in the literature prior to the year 1900.

I am afraid Crisco 1492, et al. have missed the point regarding Bernard Parham’s notability. Nobody claimed that the sequence of moves 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 had never been played before. Given enough time, a monkey typing at a keyboard, would reproduce the complete works of Shakespeare. The point is that Bernard Parham took an obscure, discredited opening and played it during his entire chess career against Master level opposition, with success. The Parham Attack has now been played at Grandmaster level, by Hikaru Nakamura, and has been discussed in the Guardian (formerly Manchester Guardian) newspaper as a potentially requiring a 'grand rethink" of chess.

Parham’s maximum USCF rating was over 2300, which is International Master level, and he did this by playing the Parham Attack exclusively as White. Parham was also awarded the National Master title in 2002 by USCF. By the way, nobody in the world calls this opening the Danvers Opening. It is referred to, in over two hundred counties, as the Parham Attack. As content creator, it is my considered judgment that this entry is well referenced, and marking it as draft is also a mistake. This article should be restored as a wikipedia entry in its original format. Moreover, the Wikipedia entry ‘Danvers Opening’ should be renamed/redirected to the new entry ‘Parham Attack’.

From content creator George.kvakovszky Monday March 9, 2022 — Preceding unsigned comment added by George.kvakovszky (talk • contribs) 17:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "Parham Attack" is an internet name. Most of the google hits are to forums and self-published sites. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)