National Master Bernard Parham passed away on Wednesday June 19 at the age of 77. Parham won the Indiana State Chess Championship in 1967, and he created the "Matrix System," an attacking method that he successfully used to win tournament games and as a teaching tool to introduce young people to chess. In connection with the "Matrix System," Parham also created a new form of chess notation based on the distinctive way that each chess piece moves; the U.S. Chess Federation approved Parham's chess notation for use in USCF rated tournaments.
The "Matrix System" is characterized by playing 2. Qh5 after 1. e4 e5. The early Queen move defies traditional opening principles that minor pieces should be developed first; when the Queen ventures out early, the opponent can gain time by attacking the Queen with less valuable pieces. Parham studied physics at Purdue, and he developed the "Matrix System" based on the notion that there is a connection between chess and vector analysis.
Objectively, the "Matrix System" is not the best opening, but it has demonstrated its value in practical play. Not only did Parham achieve the National Master title (placing him in the top 1% of all rated U.S. players), but Parham's son Bernard Parham II is a Class A player who tied for first place in the 1994 National K-12 Championship (Grade 12) while using the "Matrix System."
This early Queen sortie has even been used at the game's highest levels. World Chess Champion Magnus Carlsen played 2. Qh5 versus Shamsiddin Vokhidov in the 2018 World Rapid Championship. Carlsen lost that game--but not because of the opening, and in fact Carlsen missed a forced win on move 20. Carlsen did not win the World Rapid Championship in 2018, but he has won the event a record five times (2014-15, 2019, 2022-23), so he obviously takes it seriously and performs at a high level there.
Five-time U.S. Chess Champion Hikarua Nakamura, who has been ranked as high as second in the world, played 2. Qh5 versus GM Krishnan Sasikiran in the 2005 Sigeman tournament. Nakamura lost that game in 87 moves, but not because of the opening; he was close to winning at one point, but lost after he made a mistake and then pressed too hard instead of settling for a draw. Nakamura also played 2. Qh5 versus GM Nikola Mitkov in the HB Global Challenge, and versus GM Anton Filippov in the Second Champions Challenge, with both games ending into draws. Nakamura has used 2. Qh5 in many online chess games.
I first met Parham when he visited the Dayton Chess Club in the early 1990s. He was already a National Master, while I had yet to obtain Expert status or win the Dayton Chess Club Championship. Parham and I talked about his "Matrix System," and I expressed skepticism that this playing method was superior to traditional methods. Parham and I played several friendly blitz games, and he won most of those games. We talked about those games that night, and I maintained that he was beating me not because of the "Matrix System" but rather because he was a superior overall player; most of the games were decided because he outplayed me in the middlegame or endgame from equal or even inferior positions. Parham was without question both talented and hard-working; it is interesting to speculate about whether his "Matrix System" enabled him to maximize his talents, or if he could have been even stronger had he taken a more traditional approach to the game. I still am not sure what the correct answer is, but I disagree with those who just blithely dismiss his playing style and teaching methods; there is more than one way to attain mastery, and more than one way to keep students interested and engaged.
Nearly 20 years after we first met, I played my only rated game against Parham; by that time, I was rated close to 2100 USCF and within the next few years I would achieve my peak USCF rating (so far!) of 2190, while Parham's rating had dropped to 2010 (his health problems no doubt affected his chess rating). Interestingly, Parham did not play his "Matrix System" in this game, and we reached a standard position in the Giuoco Piano. I obtained an advantage out of the opening, but Parham equalized after I made a mistake on move 19 (Qb3 maintains a solid edge for White). After I blundered on move 32, Parham missed the winning shot 32...Ra1, and on move 34 he forced a draw instead of playing ...Qg4, which leads to a winning position.
In short, this was an interesting--but far from perfect--battle that ended peacefully:
Event: Sunday in the Park (Columbus, Ohio) G/60 9/11/11 (4)
White: David Friedman (2094)
Black: Bernard Parham (2010)
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nd4 4. O-O d6 5. Nxd4 exd4 6. c3 Qf6 7. f4 Be6 8. Qb3 O-O-O 9. Bxe6+ fxe6 10. Qa4 dxc3 11. Nxc3 Kb8 12. d4 c6 13. Be3 d5 14. Rac1 Ne7 15. b4 Nc8 16. b5 Nb6 17. Qc2 Rc8 18. bxc6 Rxc6 19. exd5 exd5 20. Qb3 Qe6 21. Rfe1 Bd6 22. Bf2 Qf5 23. Bg3 h5 24. Nb5 Nc4 25. Qa4 Ra6 26. Nxd6 Nxd6 27. Qb4 h4 28. Re5 Qf6 29. Bf2 Rxa2 30. Rxd5 Ne4 31. Qc4 Qxf4 32. Bxh4 Qe3+ 33. Kh1 Qf4 34. Re5 Nf2+ 35. Kg1 Nh3+ 36. Kh1 Nf2+ 37. Kg1 Nh3+ 38. Kh1 Nf2+ 39. Kg1 1/2-1/2
The last time that I saw Parham was at the April 1, 2023 Indianapolis Super Tornado. We had a nice conversation in between rounds, reminiscing about both our first encounter at the DCC and about our rated game. I told him that I am still trying to reach NM level, and that I have great respect for all players who have accomplished that feat. He provided encouragement to me about achieving this goal. Parham played in just two more rated tournaments, both in Indiana in 2023.
Parham leaves behind a lasting legacy as a National Master who also taught and inspired many students. His "Matrix System" has not replaced mainstream opening theory, but it is an interesting contribution to our beloved game.
As chess computers have become more powerful and sophisticated, we humans have learned that opening ideas that look odd to human eyes are in fact quite playable. Chess is a combination of art and sport, and there is a scientific aspect to chess as well. Computers reveal the scientific aspect of chess by demonstrating the technically correct way to play, but humans love chess not only for the pursuit of objective truth but also for the creation of beauty and for the heart-pumping thrill of competition.
Even though Parham conceived of the "Matrix System" as a scientific contribution to chess, I think that his approach has its greatest value from a sporting perspective; from a practical standpoint as an active tournament player, I know that even some opening lines that computers say objectively are not great are difficult for humans to counter under the stress of tournament conditions. Even if some super computer objectively refutes the "Matrix System," that would not change the reality that Parham used his system to achieve National Master status while beating and drawing many strong players along the way. In that sense, Parham is an artistic cousin to the great World Chess Champion Mikhail Tal, who once joked with self-deprecation that there are two kinds of chess sacrifices: his sacrifices, and correct sacrifices. As long as humans enjoy playing chess as a form of artistic expression and as a sport, the game will always be about more than just which moves are "objectively" correct.
No comments:
Post a Comment