Ponziani: Impractical in non-computer Correspondence Chess?

  • #361

    What is TCEC?

  • #362
    ponz111 wrote:

    What is TCEC?

    engine vs engine tournament

  • #363

    thanks!

  • #364

    Please take this conversation to an appropriately title forum.  Thanks.

  • #365

    Happy New Year!

    Apologies kanti. I'm guessing a certain btickler used my counter-argument (which did go the long way in explanation) to hice, namely that I don't believe Ponziani Power's analysis or their play as a group was the result of strictly engine use and not due to the opening's practical use, to attack me. Like as if I, a chessplayer from Hawaii, of Asian descent, admittedly not as up on trends (in comparison to him) could ever comment intelligently on this subject. Or could be he was just bored. I like to think the latter because I believe everyone's opinion matters. Regardless if you vehemently think you're "right", and everyone else are idiots. Embed some pointless links or out of context superficial regurgitated "facts". Whew.

    Anyways, after doing some of my own analysis (humble.as it maybe in present company) I will definitely comeback to point of order. Again, sorry.

  • #366

    Najdorf, if you can, find a copy of the book, Ponziani Power. Compare the lines in that book to the level of analysis that was performed by the group. The book was written in the pre-computer age. Did the group follow the book's recommendations or did it make numerous improvements?

  • #367

    I know one game, Ponziani Power went against the advice in "play the Ponziani" and lost.  [note, not Ponziani Power--Ponziani Power was a book of long ago]

     

    In another game Ponziani Power more or less followed the book and lost.

     

    However, it would be sheer folly to follow the advice of any book when there are updates available in the Ponziani Opening.

     

    It would also be sheer folly to base Vote Chess moves solely on any book.

     

    The Ponziani Opening has evolved and is constantly evolving since the publication of "play the Ponziani".  The book is a very good book for learning the Opening however.

     

    Most of the teams which played against Ponziani Power Vote Chess just rolled over very quickly in the opening and had no chance to escape.

  • #368

    Three things:

    First, @Najdorf...nobody said diddly about your heritage, so that is entirely and utterly your own fears/projections.  Good luck with that.

    Second, @Shkrelis...saying you are playing Stockfish at 100% maximum strength when you are giving yourself a significant time advantage is just misleading and dishonest.  If you walk up to any titled player at a tournament and tell him you can draw Stockfish, but it has to be set for 2 seconds/move, he/she will laugh at you...or if they are nice, they will try to very politely tell you that you are full of something and that playing Stockfish that way is not really playing Stockfish at all...

    Third, anyone can argue fuzzy logic and anecdotal evidence all day.  It doesn't mean anything.  The links and other evidence I posted are not really refutable.  Just because you can't refute them doesn't mean they are "pointless" and/or "superficial" ;).  That defense mechanism is not going to take you very far in life...

  • #369

    You know, I told myself I wouldn't be baited into another pointless discussion with btickler, as his comments basically hi-jacked this thread. It's not a resolution but I will still respect the OP. Just let me say this to him though..

    btickler, as you haven't refuted the points I'd made to hicetunc, even through links, I don't owe you anything. Period.

    As far as my heritage. I've been dealing with that all my life thankyouveddymuch. I only mentioned it because I'd rather characterize myself than be compared to being a peasant in feudal England, playing Space Invaders using Amber monitors (though monochromed would've been more accurate) and just because I'm not as Google savvy as you, I don't have the faintest idea of what I'm talking about in MY on post.

    I'll not lower myself to your level. I'd always contradicted your points, not you. Through common sense and stuff I do know to be true. Not fuzzy. Demeaning opinions of me are not "irrefutable" points. Get over yourself.

    Nuff said. Happy New Year anyways.

  • #370
    shkrelis_nemesis wrote:
    kantifields wrote:

    Please take this conversation to an appropriately title forum.  Thanks.

    At this point I think you might have to (temporarily?) block the antagonizers (SmyslovFan, btickler) and those defending themselves (myself, najdorf96), because I know I for one am going to continue to defend myself against btickler in particular.

    Nice that you'd like the block now that you've had another round ;), but I had no intention of continuing past the single post I made after Kant's request.  

    I've already proven my point, and until you draw Stockfish/Droidfish at 25-30 ply, with all other settings also set appropriately (no opening book shenanigans, etc.), you have nothing.  End of story. 

    P.S. For an even contest, you also need to turn Ponder on as well as using the exact same time/move.

  • #371

    It looks horrible to me for white, the king exposed in the centre of the board, while his colleague is comfortably smoking a cigar behind his army. But, why not give it a try once?

  • #372
    mecuelgalapieza wrote:

    It looks horrible to me for white, the king exposed in the centre of the board, while his colleague is comfortably smoking a cigar behind his army. But, why not give it a try once?

    A little one sided analysis; black has given up two pieces.

  • #373
    btickler wrote:
    shkrelis_nemesis wrote:
    kantifields wrote:

    Please take this conversation to an appropriately title forum.  Thanks.

    At this point I think you might have to (temporarily?) block the antagonizers (SmyslovFan, btickler) and those defending themselves (myself, najdorf96), because I know I for one am going to continue to defend myself against btickler in particular.

    Nice that you'd like the block now that you've had another round ;), but I had no intention of continuing past the single post I made after Kant's request.  

    I've already proven my point, and until you draw Stockfish/Droidfish at 25-30 ply, with all other settings also set appropriately (no opening book shenanigans, etc.), you have nothing.  End of story. 

    P.S. For an even contest, you also need to turn Ponder on as well as using the exact same time/move.

    Your contradictor has just been banned for cheating on chess.com, so I guess it will add some extra weight on your side of the argument...

    http://www.chess.com/home/game_archive?sortby=&show=live&member=shkrelis_nemesis

  • #374

    hicetnunc wrote:

    Your contradictor has just been banned for cheating on chess.com, so I guess it will add some extra weight on your side of the argument...

    Ahhh, sweet karma... ;)

  • #375

    Indeed. Karma. Cool. More on that later.

    Kanti and ponz have both shown, through examples of their games & intimate knowledge that they know the Ponziani as black or white. It's not even an issue of ponz's authority, level of play in this opening. It's already documented.

    Details of engine use is a non-starter. I made my comment based on my own opinion in general. Anyone with a problem should, like the OP said, contribute in the appropriate forums. I don't know anything about the goings on, nor do I have to, to comment. I said what I said simply because I truly believe "objectivity in the opening is always a Human thing".

  • #376

    I do believe playing the Ponziani in Online Chess or correspondence is practical. I'm thinking of implementing it. Against the Fraser, I just have to strive for the draw. Which is possible as some players know the analysis but are equally not in their element. Despite engine use. I'm assured by chess.com I needn't worry about such things.

    I stand by my post to hice.

  • #377

    I do my own research through books. I imagine some reading this are in shock. Heh. I just think what I do is hardcore compared to you software junkies. Heaven forbid if there is an AI takeover. Heh. Karma. Anyways.

    Euwe, in his great "book" (circa 1963 McKay) stated this;

    Chess Masters vs. Chess Amateur, Game 5, pg. 43

    (a) 4 Q-R4

    (a4) 4. ... P-B3 (solid and best, but against all.principles because it takes the natural square from the Black KN)

    5. B-N5 N-K2 6. PxP QxP 7. P-Q4 B-Q2 8.O-O PxP 9. PxP N-K4! 10. BxBch QxB (with an even game).

    Yet, in Chess Openings: Theory and Practice (by I.A. Horowitz circa 1964) Unusual King Pawn Games, pg. 227

    Ponziani's Opening Game 1

    Euwe-Speyer, Exhibition game, Gouda 1921

    We see Euwe punishing his opponent in 39 moves.

    In fact, Reuben Fine stated in his Immortal book,

    The Ideas Behind the Chess Openings, Third Edition (1991)

    [1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. c3 d5 4. Qa4]

    "4. Bd7 is also playable, but 4. ... f6 5. Bb5 Ne7 6. exd5 Qxe5 7. d4! is inferior because White has all the initiative."

    How true. In my own investigations, my NCO rates this line as equal, though MCO-14 goes further in note (s), pg. 133

    [(A) 7. ... Bd7 8. Be3{!} exd4 9. cxd4 Ne5 10. Nc3 Nxf3+ 11. gxf3 Qf5 12. O-O-O a6 13. d5 +- Maas-Mitchell, London 1912{!}]

  • #378

    Happy New YEAR 2016 !!!

  • #379

    Happy New Year Cloud!!!

    As it is, some here have mentioned the NCO doesn't even mention the Fraser line, MCO-14 dubbed it as "winning" for White. True. John Nunn strove, in his work (with three other GM's) to essentially strip various lines deemed "obsolete" soo I'm assuming he thought it as a dead end as far as theory was concerned. Funnily, Walter Korn as editor with Nick deFirmian collaborating in MCO-13, Ponziani's Opening, pg. 129

    [1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. c3 Nf6 4. d4 Nxe4 5. d5 Bc5{!?} 6. dxc6 Bxf2+ 7. Ke2 bxc6 8. Qa4 f5 9. Nbd2 O-O 10. Nxe4 fxe4 11. Qxe4 Bb6(k)]

    (k) After 12. Kd1 d5 13. Qxe5 Bf5 Black's attack should be enough for his sacrificed piece.

    But Nick, with complete authorship, backtracked and noted in MCO-14:

    pg. 132

    (a) 12. Kd2 d6 13. Bd3 Bf5 14. Qxc6+- from the game, Hector-Sandstrom, Copenhagen 1991.

    I actually did my own analysis (whoa no engine? Ghastly)

    Why 12. ... d6? Just because Kd2 supports Bd3, doesn't mean Black still can't play ... d5. If 13. Qxe5 Bf5, then 14. Bd3. I think 14. ... Qd7 still holds all the trumps. I could go on but I think you get the gist.

  • #380

    You are right

Top
or Join

Online Now