Talk:Danvers Opening

Chess C‑class Low‑importance

	Chess portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chess on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChessWikipedia:WikiProject ChessTemplate:WikiProject Chesschess articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Since you edited your comment after I posted mine, I removed it. ⟳ausa کui ^× 09:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

...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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]