10463 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!
In the position instead of 7. Qd4 7. Qf3 is played more often and is a better line. However, I would play 7. Nc4.
Also, there is nothing wrong with just playing 7. Nxg6 as pointed out by Mr. Jempty. 7. Nxg6 is the way the line used to be played some years ago.
This variation can be somewhat boring if the wrong 7th move is chosen.
\However in the 4 Bishop endgame which can arise White has pretty fair winning chances and Black has virtually no chance to win.
Smyslovfan, there are two basic "refutations" to the Ponziani recently out.
One is by Kaufman.
One of the "refutations" is already covered in Play the Ponziani--apparently the author of the book with the refutation had not seen Play the Ponziani.
The other "refutation" from Kaufman is harder and already shown here on this forum. I am working on several replies and am satisfied with my new theory so far but it is very complex and I am not ready to use it now unless it comes up in an actual vote chess game against Ponziani Power.
I am checking and rechecking my new theory--already I did find one flaw and had to redo a good part of my theory.
In the meantime the Ponziani is good enough for almost anyone and will continue to be ok despite what some may say about it.
Except for this little bit of new theory I am working on --am quite willing to discuss any line in the Ponziani.
Ponz, if your group won't accept vote chess challenges where computer assistance is allowed, which it is per the rules (http://www.chess.com/votechess/help#computers) than just STFU about your lame opening because you know my group was going to be able to draw you at worst in any of about a half dozen lines.
As Super Admin of the group Ponziani Power I declined your offer of a 'computer assisted' vote chess game. It is not something our group would be interested in. I mentioned this when declining the offer.
The default stance is that computers and outside help are NOT allowed! However, if a game is going to allow computer or outside help it will be clearly noted in the game description.
So, since computer assistance is optional, a group does not have to accept that condition. If your team is so great, why must you have computer assistance? Don't bother answering as I'm not interested in your foul mouth.
Lol. Can someone please explain what computer assisted chess is?
And Jempty, I am sure we agreed that there is no computer assistance in our games.
The theme of our team Ponziani Power is to learn how to use the Ponziani Opening in non-computer assisted games. We are not going to change that.
Right now we have more games going than I would like but in any event there is no point to a computer vs computer vote chess game.
And for sure you may be excellent in computer assisted games, bravo for you. I would even bet you have a better computer than some of us have.
If you wish to find lines vs the Ponziani using your computers that is fine with me but do not expect a team which plays without computer assistence to all of a sudden play using a computer or computers.
I kind of get databases of old games. That is studying. But is Jempty talking about computer analyzed moves?? What is the point in that?
Jempty Regarding your game against Fritz as something we would have to worry about [5. e5 Ne4] Sorry but we are not worried about that line even though that computer played the line incorrectly for the White side.
Ponz, do me a favor and dont discuss that game. Jempty and I are playing a game that might resemble that one in particular.
kantifields sure, I will not discuss that game further for now.
Ponziani Power Why We Have a Great Vote Chess Team
1. We are open to anyone who wants to learn a little or a lot about the Ponzianai Opening. We are a friendly group and delighted to have new members.
.2. Any member may ask questions at any time and will recieve the best answer or answers we can give. There are no stupid questions. If you want to ask several questions that is ok also.
3. There is much information in our forums. Some discussion about Ponziani games played. Some theoretical discussion of Ponziani lines. Or discussions of other [usually chess] matters. Any member can contribute to our forums.
4. We have wonderful particpation in our vote chess gaames. There is much discussion of the potential moves and many members make diagrams of suggested lines. Probably we have more discussions in vote chess than almost any other team. Questions are asked and answered.
Opening theory is discussed in the vote chess games and sometimes there is discussion of chess theory in general.
You do not have to vote, you can just watch the discussions and still you will learn a whole lot.
Dave Taylor ponz111
Ok, if you create a group devoted to a specialized opening that nobody really plays, study it in game after game, publish analysis that only members of that group can see, then only accept invitations to play from groups that have never studied the game, then yeah, you'll probably win.
If you want a real challenge to the opening, allow the non-specialists access to computers so they can analyse the game as it's going on. Your best players have already spent months and months (or years and years) using computer analysis to prepare their specialised opening.
Make the game unrated, but learn from the game.
Also, if you're really going to censor yourself because someone else is playing a game that features an opening under public discussion, then all public discourse about any topical line is pointless. (Not that this is the best place for theoretical discussions anyway.)
Thanks for the advice SmyslovFan...
SmyslovFan you are way off base. There are many teams which specialize in certain openings. I belong to three of them.
There is absolutely nothing wrong in having a team which only plays a certain opening. The purpose of Ponziani Power is to learn about this opening for people who are interested.
And I know that other than me we do not have one player who has spent months and years or years and years using computer assistence to analyze the Ponziani. In fact most of our team does not even have the book Play the Ponziani and they are certainly not experts in this opening.
You are maligning 52 out of 53 players in our group with your untrue statements.
We do not need you to tell us how to do things in our group.
And I am personally open to discussion about lines in the Ponziani except for that one line out of 1000 that I have not completed my study.
Ponz, I said that if you want a real challenge to the opening, not to the group, you should allow unrated vote chess games where both sides use an engine. If you want a deep theoretical discussion of the opening, the only fair way is to have a vote chess match where both sides have access to computers.
Your group has 53 players. Congratulations! I was not maligning the group. I am maligning any arguments that vote chess games where one side has an unfair advantage in Ponziani theory (or any specialised opening) over the other is an appropriate way to settle theoretical debates about the worth of that opening.
This thread is not about any specific group, it's about an opening. My comments were about the opening.
We use vote chess games to look at and discuss opening lines of the Ponziani. The discussion carries on through the mid game and if the game lasts that long, the endgame. Vote Chess at its best.
The purpose of Ponziani Power is NOT to settle theoretical debates--the purpose is to give people a chance to learn about the Ponziani Opening.
I also belong to a group which plays the Benko Gambit and a group which plays The Scandinavian and a group which plays the Bb5 Sicilian. People join these groups to learn more about the particular opening and sometimes to have fun playing in maybe a vote chess game. People do not join these groups to have to play against a chess computer.
You were way off base when you stated "Your best players have already spent months and months [or years and years] using computer analysis to prepare their specialized opening." This is simply UNTRUE! Our players, the vast majority of them, are learners-NOT specialists in the Ponziani.
They do not analyze the Ponziani for months or years using computers.
What you say about them is just NOT TRUE!
And we do not need your advice on how to run our group--we do just fine without your advice!
I asked Ponz not to discuss a line that is being played by two people that monitor this thread. I asked so that my opponent would have a fair chance.
please just let me add....good riddance. I still don't know why one of our higher rated players didn't play Jumpety. Kanti didn't even have a book!
Chess is Hard
by flubdub a few minutes ago
14 Sicilian games so far, only 1 open Siclian. What about you?
by FromMuToYou a few minutes ago
archive Time per move in PNG
by pullin 3 minutes ago
12/3/2013 - Forward Thinking
by Bryan681972 4 minutes ago
Sicilian Lowenthal [B32]
by FriendlySquid 5 minutes ago
my favourites about chess.com:
by macer75 12 minutes ago
what the #$%^was he playing and how did he win?
by FromMuToYou 14 minutes ago
Boris Spassky hospitalized!!!
by Somebodysson 18 minutes ago
The wild wild English
by Irinasdaddy 21 minutes ago
by Strange_Idiom 21 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2013 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!