Ponziani discussion without spam
Sort:
[COMMENT DELETED]
DrSpudnik wrote:
Here's what I posted on page 1 of the "other" thread (the one with 1500+ posts) two years ago. It might serve as the starting point for some observations:
I used to know a 1900/2000 player who played the Ponziani. He always hoped for 1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. c3 Nf3 4. d4 exd4 5. e5...with a violent attack.
And anyone numb enough to play into this, pretty much went under by move 20. Otherwise, the game was either a drawish, dud (3...Nf6 lines) or tactical nightmares (3... d5 lines).
Personally, I prefer to get my King's Bishop out on move 3 and then castle early, keeping options open, as stated above. Though, like with many discredited lines, you can play it if you like and even do fairly well with it.
There is no "violent attack" after "3. c3 Nf3 4. d4 exd4 5. e5", except maybe for Black:
I'm searching my computer(s) for a game I played against a leading engine from the 90s and will post the full score here -- it beat me after my attack persisted past move 30 (so I was neither "numb", nor did I go "under by move 20"), but I missed a winning continuation.
According to chesslive.de/"megabase" 9...Kf7 was first played by Belgiam IM Boey in the 1960 Varna olympiad; he drew then, as he did in 1970 against David Levy (they're both solid 2300+ players at the time).
In 1972 eventual World Correspondence champion Victor Palciauskas won with it in a US Corres. Championship game. Not too shabby for the first 3 results with the line according to the database, and not too shabby for supposedly having allowed a "violent attack."
Maybe if you don't play the Black sides of these lines -- for instance you're a French player -- you should keep your yap shut, primarily so YOU don't look up looking like a fool.
DrSpudnik wrote:
The larger point is that these guys have to use Stockfish or other engines, because they are lame and can't analyze things on their own credibly without some C-player finding an obvious omission or blunder.
On this point, ponz is right: Modern chess analysis uses engines. It's not lame, it's professional.
Having said that, starting analysis on move 10 after Black has made some sub-optimal moves and claiming an advantage is where the real problem lies.
Dzikus, use your tools and ingenuity to find improvements for Black's play (before move 10)! If you are searching for truth, use your powerful tools to disprove your point. If you can't disprove your point, then make a post about it. This is the scientific method as applied to chess.
SmyslovFan wrote:
DrSpudnik wrote:
The larger point is that these guys have to use Stockfish or other engines, because they are lame and can't analyze things on their own credibly without some C-player finding an obvious omission or blunder.
On this point, ponz is right: Modern chess analysis uses engines. It's not lame, it's professional.
Having said that, starting analysis on move 10 after Black has made some sub-optimal moves and claiming an advantage is where the real problem lies.
Dzikus, use your tools and ingenuity to find improvements for Black's play (before move 10)! If you are searching for truth, use your powerful tools to disprove your point. If you can't disprove your point, then make a post about it. This is the scientific method as applied to chess.
Modern chess analysts are using their brains too, instead of simply pointing out that engine rates some position better for one side. And I dont see advantage for White even after move 10. Both 10.d3 and 10.Bb3 does allow black to have a good compensation for a pawn similar with Marshall attack.
Another problem with ponz111 and other aficionados of their pet openings - they are not interested in the truth. They are interested to prove that their pet openings are at least no worse than other more solid and more popular openings (which usually simply is not true)
SmyslovFan napisał:
Dzikus, use your tools and ingenuity to find improvements for Black's play (before move 10)! If you are searching for truth, use your powerful tools to disprove your point. If you can't disprove your point, then make a post about it. This is the scientific method as applied to chess.
Good point, the lines I have posted were just the "first approximation" and I need further analysis (which requires much more time than it took to get them).
I have warned the readers to not trust the line blindly as the further moves need not be the best ones because of decreasing search depth which supports them.
My posts were just the answers of how the engine evaluates some position after 30 minutes but you are right - posting a line (not only the bare numbers) should be backed up with a more torough and serious analysis.
Pacifique, I'm interested in testing your compensation for that pawn. Care to play a game at 3 days per move from that position? I'm not sure yet whether I prefer 10.d3 or 10.Bb3 but I do prefer White's position, and I play the Marshall for Black.
Expertise87 wrote:
Pacifique, I'm interested in testing your compensation for that pawn. Care to play a game at 3 days per move from that position? I'm not sure yet whether I prefer 10.d3 or 10.Bb3 but I do prefer White's position, and I play the Marshall for Black.
Do you mean rated chess.com game or centaur game?
Rated chess.com game, I have no interest in centaur chess.
Expertise87 wrote:
Rated chess.com game, I have no interest in centaur chess.
Challenge sent.
We have started our game on that line. Expertise87 played 12.Re1 (instead of 12.Re2, reccomended by dzikus/Stockfish). This is not centaur game, so please no comments until the game is finished.
Thx Pacifique for making this thread. It appreciate being able to read mature analysis without someone selling their crap that has little to do with chess, or having to be reminded in every post of his rating or experience.. It's all together an annoyance reading the spam of an Old Narcicist who really just wants nothing but praise and authority recognition. Know what I mean? ;)
jimmerstoopy wrote:
Thx Pacifique for making this thread. It appreciate being able to read mature analysis without someone selling their crap that has little to do with chess, or having to be reminded in every post of his rating or experience.. It's all together an annoyance reading the spam of an Old Narcicist who really just wants nothing but praise and authority recognition. Know what I mean? ;)
+1, exactly my thoughts
Pacifique, so do you mean that even with a poor move like 3...Nge7, black has at least equality againist the Ponziani?
Ponz is now claiming that he has a refutation to the Ponziani. Don't expect him to make any apologies to those who claimed all along that the Ponziani is a playable sideline that is inferior to the main lines though.
SmyslovFan wrote:
Ponz is now claiming that he has a refutation to the Ponziani. Don't expect him to make any apologies to those who claimed all along that the Ponziani is a playable sideline that is inferior to the main lines though.
Yep. I took a look at his recent games and all of them went with 3...Nf6 4.d4 Nxe4 5.d5 Bc5 6.dxc6 Bxf2+ 7.Ke2 Bb6 8.Qd5 Nf2 9.Rg1 O-O 10.cxb7 Bxb7 11.Qb7 Qf6 differing on move 12 by white. Black seems to have an advantage in this line, though being down 2 pieces for 2 pawns.
Critical position may come after 12. Qd5 c6 13. Qd2 e4 14. Nd4 e3 15. Qc2 Rae8
Here's what I got by letting Stockfish churn for several hours:
(15...Rae8 Stockfish 4 64 -0.26 (depth 28) 16.Qf5 Qd6 17.Na3 g6 18.Nc4 Qxh2 19.Nf3 Qc7 20.Qf6 Re6 21.Qh4 Re4 22.Qh2 Qxh2 23.Nxh2 Rxc4 24.g3 d5 25.a4 Re8 26.a5 Bc5 27.Nf3 f5 28.Ne1 Rg4 29.b4) (15...Rae8 -0.30 (depth 28) 16.Nf3 Re6 17.a4 a5 18.c4 Rfe8 19.c5 Ba7 20.Nc3 Qe7 21.Ke1 Bxc5 22.Bd3 g6 23.Ba6 Rf6 24.Ne2 Qd6 25.Nc3 Rf5 26.Qe2 Qb8 27.g3)
If not refuted into an indisputably losing position, there seems to be a strong possibility of a forced line leading to Black advantage against the Ponziani.
This is unlikely as 4.d3 is certainly no worse for White in that line.
Besides 4.d3 white can play 5.Bd3 and avoid the crazy Fraser. If black chooses 5...d5 then 6.de5 leads to positions which look very similar to Open Spanish - no doubt I would choose that in an OTB game