Ponziani: Impractical in non-computer Correspondence Chess?

This is probably an inaccurate quote. When I was on that team there was a player over 2500.

There is no opening book for the Ponziani except "Play the Ponziani" but that was limited help for that vote chess team as the theory of the Ponziani was developing very fast and beyond that book.

I learned the black side of the Fraser from about a dozen games played in Centaur and Vote chess platforms.  The discussions in vote chess were more useful because very few people get through the centaur lines as and then black must find the winning sequence.  The win is always there.  White screws up and black has to know how to pounce.

Just finished.  Well worth it for anyone who likes drama.  Not as good as Breaking Bad or The Wire, but good enough for a Monday afternoon.

Kantifields,  yes, if White screws up Black wins.  Also, if Black screws up

White wins. 

However, if you are implying that the Fraser is a win for Black [as you seem to be implying] you are quite wrong.

The Ponziani-BFG vote chess game has been analysed ad nauseum already on another thread. I really, really don't think ponz wants to revisit the findings made there.

Regarding when I learned the Fraser: I learned it recently when discussing it with Brian Wall and yourself on this site. I tried it out shortly thereafter and won convincingly. But the game wasn't theoretically interesting. White blundered in the opening.

What I questioned is "Is the Ponziani practical in correspondence chess?"  What I am finding is that it is not.  I am thrashing people with the Fraser, even in games that I miss the most acurate play.  My win over IM kacparov is a prime example.

I use 2 databases , 1 is an online database and the other is my chess assistant database .  Sorry , had to have an old man nap ... 

I do not remember exactly what happened in the vote chess game Ponziani Power vs Bobby Fischer Group. It happened after I left Ponziani Power.   I think one or both sides were accused of cheating?  It is somewhat not relevant as the long line played by Ponziani Power was a bad line.  [A line, I had warned against before the actual game was played]

I have a lot of theory on the Fraser.  With best play by both sides it leads to a draw. [just as with the Ruy Lopez and many variations of the Ruy Lopez lead to a draw with best play by both sides]

The Fraser is a particularily hard variation to play by  both White and Black. It may seem easier for Black because in a Centaur Exhibition I took the Black side and scored very well against strong opposition.

But, despite my success, the whole variation is a draw. I have a ton of not published notes on the Frasier.

I noticed in a vote chess game where I happened to be on the Black side you got your team to play this line [apparently to avoid the Fraser]

+1 interesting, nothing could beat the Breaking Bad but The Wire, is it that good ?

I think White should always try to win and this means not making moves just to avoid a possible Fraser Defense.

In the future the better moves will come out and the Fraser Variation, while enterprising, will be shown to be a draw with chances for both sides.

Are you referring to postal play  or otb, or both ? 

Yes, I had just played two games vs. Expertise where we both played  4.d3.  I thought it would be a good surprise weapon.  You played a few moves then left.  I don't play or advocate 4. d3. anymore, and I think the analysis in your book Play the Ponziani which states equality after 4. d3 is wrong.

Also, your analysis of the Fraser in Play the Ponziani is completely wrong.

No big deal, improvements are always expected.

People who like Breaking Bad generally like The Wire.  Wire is much better, but it's not to everyone's taste as it's more character-driven and less action.  Hands down The Wire is the best show I've ever seen on TV.

and is Walking Dead is your taste ?

Some series I like : Dexter , Homeland, Blacklist , The Americans ... 

The book was written before these Fraser lines came into vogue and did not address them adequately.

As for the line where White plays 4. d3,  the  book says that 4. d3 is not in the spirit of the Ponziani and gives a line in which Black comes out with an advantage  [not equality]. page 132 of the book. In fact this line was played against you.

It looks like our commercial break is over and the drama is back.

I just find this a really weird thread. As if any solid opening is impractial (Jesus - don't touch it!!) in correspondence or OTB play??? Especially for OTB play. How many players are going to be 'booked up' 15 moves in a sub-variation of the Ponziani as black? Not exactly the first line on the study list.

I love Breaking Bad, for the record, about the best TV I have seen, but the wife won't watch it?!

According to Centaur Chess the Ponziani, Ruy Lopez, The Sicilian, French and many other openings are not practical for White as after

1. e4  Black can respond 1. ...e5!  and then after White's best move of

1. e4  e5  2. Nf3  Black can  respond  2.  ...Nf6! and the chess engines with human support say Black can always force a draw............!

So, should we give up chess or practical play? 

I think there are enough variations in the Ponziani and the Ruy Lopez to test the skills of 99.99% of the players.

Sure, I expanded the theory of the Fraser and took Black and won a lot of games vs very good players but that had to do with my abilities. The pure theory of the Fraser leads to a draw.  However if either side makes a mistake--it is usually fatal. 

But as I have said before, very few players who encounter the Ponziani will have any clue that they might play a certain very complicated line and if they do, and if they know the hundreds of variations of the line, they should get a draw.

Maybe 1 tenth of 1 percent.