9561 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
The problem with sometimes playing an opening such as the Ponziani is there is no way they can know the latest and best theory. They play it apparently as a gamble as the other guy will not know the best theory also.
[other girl in this case]
Was the girl who played it.
She put up a good fight but in a bad position especially after the e6 really bad move.
Yeah. Grandmasters like to gamble with openings. Van Wely played Nimzo-Indian today against Sokolov who just wrote the book about this opening. And he won! xD
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X27cvLgwiWQ Carlsen's analyse of today's game
One problem with writing a book on an opening variation is that other masters or grandmasters or supergrandmasters can look at the whole book and if they find one flaw....
Van Wely said he was thinking of buying the move but he thought it may uncover his plans to use that opening.
Watching his interview and watching his moves. This guy has a chess mind like some kind of a super chess engine. I am amazed how he is willing to discuss such a complex game in detail and give variation after variation right on the spot when asked after the game. And he is so quick when discussing long/hard/complex lines--just like a super computer.
He is a boon to the chess world in that he is willing to give such an interview. I am starting to think he is or may be the best player of all time.
'A year from, 2900 or world champion?'
'How would you assess your play so far?'
'It's OK, nothing more, but certainly nothing less.'
Ponz, Super-GMs are like this. If you want to feel impressed further watch these videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGRjs7e6B8w (time - 0:22, amazing)
And he is honest!
Ha, that Leko interview reminds me of this one, but the Leko one is even better actually:
Vote Chess Game Just Finishing
Jempty Because you say the Ponziani throws away White's advantage at the top does not mean the Ponziani throws away White's advantage at the top.
I have the right to sometimes post a good Ponziani game on this thread . There are plenty of people who will parrot others and just say the Ponziani is a bad opening and now there are more and more people who realize the real potential of the Ponziani Opening.
You posting some obscure line is not an anology to the Ponziani Opening.
Jempty, doesn't black equalize instantly with d5? you have to trade pawns, next you're looking at Be6 and another move of the queen. You can't threaten anything on the queenside because the queen is blocking any threat the bishop might make at b5.
I noticed Nakamura has this OCD thing with saying "It is what it is". Seems every post-game interview he says this now.
Yes, every time. He can't finish an interview without it.
What kind of success are you getting with equal opponents with this opening. The truth is in the pushing.
Because an opening is "obscure" does not make it bad. I remember quite a few years ago the Center Counter with 1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 was considered by most as a rather bad opening. I wrote a book on that opening anyway. And then played that opening in the 7th United States Correspondence Championship. And then [this was back in the late 1980s] slowly other people started looking at this opening. And then someone wrote a book and another book and the theory progressed to a world champion using that opening.
Back in the days of Morphy the Sicilian was an obscure opening but now we realize the Sicilian is a very viable opening.
Just putting a label on an opening does not make it a bad opening.
And while it is true I have played this opening for more than 25 years-I do not just play it out of habit and I have had much success with it and my play was with about 75% masters or above and 25% experts.
Also because Bruce Monson apparently loves and plays the Belgrade Gambit and because maybe that particular opening is not good--there is no anology with someone playing a completely different opening.
With your anology you could pick out someone who always plays 1. h4 and then say he has "Golden Hammer" syndrome and then compare 1. h4 with the Ponziani Opening.
10/1/2014 - Mate in 3 Again
by albert471 a few minutes ago
Post your best miniatures here
by aman_makhija 10 minutes ago
Ashley's Million-dollar chess tourney - but bring your own clocks
by small_potato 12 minutes ago
Do You Insist ?
by Marignon 12 minutes ago
Kasparov on Stupidity
by TheRocketKing 22 minutes ago
How do I get rid of my profile picture?
by Hydra 26 minutes ago
My Chess Engine - Comments, Anyone?
by firebolt55439 33 minutes ago
Who's your fav in the Top Ten?
by trotters64 39 minutes ago
Stuff Non-Chess Players Say
by dragonair234 64 minutes ago
Live tournaments not actually a Swiss?
by zezpwn44 67 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2014 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!