I would guess not 1... d5 as you were an expert at teh Scandanavian.
Ponziani Opening
Sort:
1...e5
Yes, he played 1. ...e5. if I remember
Did not say they were miracles. I hope someone with a good mind will spring them sometime.
I have many new lines and innovations if ever a 2nd part of Play the Ponziani is written
I shared some of my secrets with the Ponziani Power group and some with the Ponziani Analysis group [that group is also coming up with new ideas]
When someone hopes that a sequel to a book he co authored will come out he does not share ALL his secrets but I have shared many,.
Hopefully I won't die or completely lose my mind before another book is written...
So I cant play vote chess anymore so new hobby is money bridge.
Today the Junior World Champion for the year 2010 had a line out for a rather high stakes game. He has many duplicate bridge triumps so I challenged him and guess what?
Here is our most recent Vote Chess game which we won about a week ago. If anyone is interested in playing in our Vote Chess Team, we are just about to start another game vs another top vote chess team.
I have annotated the above game. The ratings of the teams is illusionary.
The ratings do actually exist. As there are no official Vote Chess elo ratings member Daws74 decided that it may be interesting to rank teams using an elo system rather than the 'points' system that used on the site.
http://www.chess.com/groups/home/vote-chess-elo-rankings
The system is still in its infancy (started October 2011) and of course the ratings should be taken with a pinch of salt. For example, Ponziani Power only ever play vote chess games as white starting 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 c3. Bigger groups will have a completely different mix of players in every game.
In the most recent table (April 2013) Ponziani Power 1664 are ranked 27th and Galatasary 1666 are ranked 26th. The top group is 3s a crowd 1865 and the group ranked 100th has a ranking of 1508.
The table is useful as is does serve as guideline to the strength of vote chess teams put out by various groups so if you are looking for a tough opponent you can directly challenge those in the top 30 or so.
The elo system is useful for finding strong teams to play vote chess against but the actual ratings are not close to the strength of many of the teams.
For example teams where real masters participate should not be rated in the 1600's. Often a team is as good or nearly as good as its best player if the best player is active for the team.
Here are my annotations to my final game with Ponziani Power
White Ponziani Power Black Galatasaray
Poor annotations, ignoring 41...c6?? which gives up f-pawn for nothing. It also lack explanations why Black 32. and 40. moves were bad, without offering reasonable alternatives.
Speaking on opening - Black had interesting alternative 16...Qh4 (instead of 16...Rfe8) with idea to prevent castling and push pawn on e3. Black would have very powerful initiative for 2 pawns and I would not like to defend such a position for White.
I agree they made a bad move witgh 41. ...c6. I think they had given up taking the game seriously at that point. The game was essentially over.
Black's 32nd move was bad as it allowed a trade of rooks. Black could have held out longer without that rook trade. It made the White duo of queen and knight that much more stronger.
By the 40th move White was winning even if if was not clear to some.
Jun 28, 2013
0
#754
Pacifique wrote:
Poor annotations, ignoring 41...c6?? which gives up f-pawn for nothing. It also lack explanations why Black 32. and 40. moves were bad, without offering reasonable alternatives.
Speaking on opening - Black had interesting alternative 16...Qh4 (instead of 16...Rfe8) with idea to prevent castling and push pawn on e3. Black would have very powerful initiative for 2 pawns and I would not like to defend such a position for White.
Pacifique line 16... Qh4, analyzed with houdini 2. The final position evaluated as a draw.
Jun 28, 2013
0
#755
32... Rb4 was considered bad because it allowed white to simplify making the extra piece stronger. 32... Rd8 was probably better.
40.... Qc3+ is bad because black needs to create a position where taking on a2 does not lose. 40... Qc3+ is a floundering move. 40... Qc2 is still losing, but requires extreme accuracy.
When they played 41... c6, it was clear this was a ?? move.
against 16.. ...Qh4 there would also be the 17. g3 try but I have not evaluated it.
socialista wrote:
Pacifique wrote:
Poor annotations, ignoring 41...c6?? which gives up f-pawn for nothing. It also lack explanations why Black 32. and 40. moves were bad, without offering reasonable alternatives.
Speaking on opening - Black had interesting alternative 16...Qh4 (instead of 16...Rfe8) with idea to prevent castling and push pawn on e3. Black would have very powerful initiative for 2 pawns and I would not like to defend such a position for White.
Pacifique line 16... Qh4, analyzed with houdini 2. The final position evaluated as a draw.
1) Too long line to be forced.
2) If it`s draw, it means that knowledgeable Black player can draw easily.
I think they played very well for the first 31 moves and the game was much harder to play than it may look now.
Because a computer may come up with an even position at one point in one variation does not mean the Black player can draw easily.
ponz111 wrote:
I think they played very well for the first 31 moves and the game was much harder to play than it may look now.
Because a computer may come up with an even position at one point in one variation does not mean the Black player can draw easily.
Because computer may come up with an even position ar one point in one variation does not mean the White player can draw easily.
1. .. Nf6