Before Nakamura, this system was promoted by midwestern teacher Bernard Parham, whom I once met; he figured out a way to teach beginning students quickly how to bully other beginning players. Here are some important elements of his system:

--Tell kids knights are worth more than rooks

--Tell them the most important squares on the board are c7 and f7 (not the center)

--Teach them to play for scholar's mate, going into a little more depth than most defenders will have done.

Of course, little kids don't yet know how to use rooks or the center, but they can easily learn to move knights twice in the opening to the fifth rank to threaten c7 and f7, and their opponents often miss threats; so his teeny students beat many other beginners, and parents liked the success, not realizing Parham had mortgaged their kids' chess future to get some cheap present results.

He'd studied some math and physics in college, and to portray his method as scientific he threw in some utter charlatanry about matrix algebra and vectors. (Yes, a chessboard looks like a matrix, and yes, vectors look like arrows on lines of attack; but vectors consist

**only** of a magnitude and a direction, like "five miles northwest,"

**with no position**, so that Qh5-e8 and Qd3-a6 are exactly the same vector. Furthermore, in vector mathematics, a matrix is used to

**distort** vectors, not to house or define them--it would not

*be* your chessboard; it would skew it.)

There is a flippant, insulting quality to the opening that no doubt appealed to the young Nakamura. And of course by insulting your opponent on the board you can get him to overpress, which is how Parham, a good tactician, sometimes beat masters with this opening (just as Miles beat Karpov with 1.a3).

Here is a link to a web article about Parham that is less judgmental about his methods than I am wont to be:

http://www.thechessdrum.net/talkingdrum/TheMatrix/index.html