Ponziani: Impractical in non-computer Correspondence Chess?

I have been playing the Ponzianifor about two years.  I have studied it with many players including Dave Taylor who is probably the leading authority on the opening.  Over a year ago a player named Firebrandx referred to the Ponziani as a wasted white in Centaur chess.  A harsh debate ensued.  Later another player, Brian Wall began discussing the Fraser defense to the Ponziani (this was actually a main reason Firebrandx called it a wasted white).  Brian had very good results with the Fraser in non-computer assisted games.

Dave Taylor then openly challenged any strong player with a strong computer program to play the Ponziani against him!!  He took black in all games and played the Fraser.  His results were a bunch of wins, no losses and a couple of draws.

In an ironic turn of events, Dave Taylor largely proved Firebrandx's statement to be true.  In Centaur chess, the Ponziani is a wasted white!

But what about over the board and non-computer assited correspondence chess?

The Fraser sacrafices 1 or 2 pieces for long lasting pressure.  A single missed tactic spells doom for either side (computers do not miss these).  Extremely accurate play seems to result in a draw; no surprise there.

Dave's challenge probably put the nail in the coffin for the Ponziani in Centaur Chess.  Fortunately, chess.com is a small world, and Ponziani players are a small fraction of that world.

Here is a game I played as black- non-computer correspondence.

Here is a recent game I played against an IM.  I thought I was wiining for most of the game.  I was even upset with myself at the end for "blundering away 1/2 a point.  Chess.com's engine analysis thought differently.  Giving me a slight minus for nearly the entire game.

I doubt it.  Unless this is the only line you play.  Most of your games should have a very low match rate.  If all of your games are the black side of a Ponziani, and you play the Fraser every time with packaged analysis- and your opponent does not get blasted out of the water early ... then I guess maybe.

I am finishing a game against an IM now in a Ponziani themed tournament (I will post it in a few days when it is done).  I doubt I played the best moves, and I know my opponent did not.  He was theoretically losing after move 8.  But I still had to prove it.  I played common attacking themes in the Fraser- I looked at all of Dave Taylor's games, and several of Brian Wall's for clues.

What is the verdict on the Fraser defence? Has it been computer analysed to be a draw yet. Which side do you think has to be more careful, I imagine Black has to be more precise with each move and know when to bail out with perpetual. I suppose White can have many options which either keep the game alive or can force Black to play a forcing line that leads to draw. It looks quite a messy type of position which I would not want be either side in an OTB game, similar to some Traxler games in the 2 Knights Defence.

Black's game is easier to play.  Centaur chess has black with a slight pull leading to a draw (I think).  But the white players who tried to make black prove he was not winning were crushed.  The white players who accepted their fate settled into a comfortable draw.

edit: I might go so far as to say Black is never playing for a draw.  In Centaur chess, it is white who must find the draw.

Dave Taylor might be trying to find an answer to the Fraser (a Na3 line perhaps)

I think in this day and age you would have to be utterly naïve to believe that correspondence games of any real quality do not involve computers in one form or another. The biggest misconception there is, I believe at least, that chess engines for what they are worth will be the death of correspondence chess to some degree. Sure, it is not uncommon to come across a postal player using a chess engine directly and personally when I strike it, it does really bother me. I feel it is quite easy to tell because they start using what I would call ‘mechanical moves’ in and coming out of the opening. The bigger problem for your Joe average six pack chess players are databases. Back in the old days before both good quality hardware and software where easy to obtain and of a reason price, it was not unheard of to spend days researching lines from a mountain of personally owned chess books and magazine. Now, it’s a few clicks and you can bring up master games, International and Grand, by the thousands. I can recall a game where an opponent of me played right into a line of a game I found on a database. If I remember rightly he deviated at a round move 25 or 30 and had to resign not long after. Who needs engines when Masters can win games for you.

As for the merits of the Ponziani Opening, I am a firm believer that it is not what you play in regards of the opening but how you play it and against whom. I have played the Ponziani and couple of times in correspondence so I am not without some experience but I am no expert at it. The best assessment I can offer is that any opening that relays on such a slow build up with the white pieces while offering little in return cannot be good in any form of our great game. I just think it is too easy for Black to achieve an equal position if not a winning one at times. Just look at the discovery made by one of Bill Wall’s chess engine in the Frasier Attack is a good example of such.

@hadron. I used to play and win correspondence tournaments, and it was not uncommon for me to predict and analyse out 30 moves in the game. The way computer programs work, they play well but get bogged down as the ply increases. I love playing with a computer to analyse as it speeds up my analysis having a decent opponent, but rarely do my moves look mechanical or like a computer game. I hear ya about how easy it is to get information today, but once you start doing serious analysis it is amazing how little definitive information there is on so many lines. Sometimes you just have to settle for, yeah white cannot win this position against this line, and not obsess about wether it is lost for white. I've just run into a great example of this that I have spent a couple of weeks analyzing, and I'm not sure it was worth it to discover that, yes white is lost if I play like a world champion on every move.

In this particular defense, the Fraser, there are at least two distinctions:

1.  There are almost no IM or GM games to be found- in fact I can't find any.

2.  The computer anakysis of the line believes white is winning- until it resigns, i.e. the computers evaluate this line poorly, or incorrectly.

I always agreed with this. The Ponziani doesn't work based on pawn structure or some kind of positional idea. It's playable due to strings of obscure tactics that have to be solved. c3 d5 should be the end of the road but it isn't because [insert forced tactical sequence]... 

Add this on top of this the sheer number of ways Black can play and it seems like White is working harder than Black right out of the opening.

It's an interesting opening but I always thought it asked too much from White.

30.f4 Re3 31.Rdh2 +- (Houdini)

Interesting games and analysis.

Here is a game played recently with the variation in question.  Both players are strong, but it is a rapid tournament.  I know nothing about this opening, but I saw this game and decided to put it out here.  I don't know if it's of any theoretical value.

In the above game, Black misplayed the line on the 7th move.

You have certainly misunderstood me.  I prefer white almost always.  It is only against the Fraser that I think white is trying to survive.

That sucks.  I looked at f4, but thought my move won by force.  Then I realized I was about to get mated and had to settle for the draw on my last move.

Believe it or not, much of the theory is being established on chess.com.  Brian Wall is the main advocate, but Dave Taylor has certainly expanded the theory.

A recent Fraser win:

Dave Taylor beat a FIDE master who tried white's moves in a centaur game.  I deviated from Dave's precise line.

Here is the chess.com analysis: we were far from perfect!

Maybe because of the theory.  White has problems to deal with.  So eschew the beaten path...