Ponziani: Impractical in non-computer Correspondence Chess?

again... talk about chess if you want.

It looked like shkrelis said "White will be fighting for a draw...unless they are using super secret analysis...or cheating...or most likely both." as both   sentences were shaded.

But now appears this last remark was yours, not his?

This is my statement,

"White will be fighting for a draw... unless they are using the super secret analysis... or cheating... or most likely both."

I clicked in the grey and could not get the cursor out.

I have said this before... I am specifically speaking about non computer assisted correspondance chess.

 IMO, OTB the Fraser is not so scary.  With Centaur white should abandon chances of winning and steer into a draw.

Whoa. I don't know if anyone should get into the middle of this. And of course, ponz n I have had our moments in other forums...notably, "Chess is a draw with Perfect play".

I do have a question (since you're both here).

A-hem. Happy New Years guys.

I'd studied a transposition:

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. c3 Nf6 4. d4 exd4

Basically going into Goring gambit ("Scotch gambit") lines where Black is equal. Said to be, "equal".

Is it viable?

yes.  I'll post two games.

In the 2nd game vs Jempty play the Ponziani gives  12. Qxe6? as a mistake and suggests 12. Bd3 as the correct move. Is there a reason you played 12. Qxe6?

Thank you kanti. I really do think the Ponziani is viable OTB like any line. It's not bad. You n ponz do a great service to advance it's practical use even if under engine assist it gets busted. Yeah, I use that term because it's "accurate" to do so and not to spite ponz! Honestly. Like how in the late 60's Fischer wrote how he'd found a "bust" to the KG in his Immortal book.

Anyways, I truly hope you two can resolve your misgivings.

8)

One thing nice about the Ponziani--over the years many have said it is busted but usually when they run up against it, they are not prepared and do poorly.

When I played on Ponziani Power team many of our opponents thought it was a bad opening until they got busted early on.

The success of Ponziani Power had more to do with the use of engine assistance than with the objective merits of the opening.

I respectfully disagree hicetnunc. I am of the opinion that engines can only assist. No matter how strong they are rated. Many computerized chessboards were rated over 2500+ FIDE back in the 90's. While I do disagree Centaur Chess is the highest form of Chess in this day and age with ponz, I believe it is Human hands that ultimately guide such fallacies. For example, the '97 Kasparov-Deep Blue match. It's not been proven, but I suspect the man behind DB's Opening book, Nick de Firmian, had more to do with it's victory than anything besides it's IBM backed calculating firepower.

Sure, any engine these days can analyze positions but heck (as I have neither access to any such resources or need one to play) I've heard one must feed it information constantly lest it's evaluation gets stuck?

Anyways. Objectivity in the Opening is always a Human thing. No computer or engine, however powerful, could ever conceive abstract concepts. It may mimic, imitate but no way emulate. No way.

You might want to face reality.  The top dozen chess engines would thrash Magnus Carlsen around like a seal in a great white shark's mouth.  He'd be lucky to draw 1 game in 10.

Chess is not won by conceiving abstract concepts...it is won by calculation, tactical and positional.  Your understanding of computer technology seems to be stuck in the days of Space Invaders and amber monitors.

Maybe you should read up on the Google project that created software that teaches itself to play games without being taught the rules at all.  Once the software dopes out the parameters of a particular game, in over half of them it usually only takes the software a few hours to surpass any human performance ever achieved...

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-31623427

It's no secret for all of us who play competitively at ICCF and LSS that letting an engine dictate the play usually results to failures. We do trust them whenever approriate (e.g. tactical solutions) but variation branching and move picking is always made by human intervention at a high CC level.

There is no doubt that an engine can dramaticaaly shorten the needed time to evaluate complex positions, since it minimizes the risk of human error, but to play modern CC at a high level you need much more than an engine and a strong computer.

If you doubt that, just subscribe to ICCF or LSS and let your precious engine achieving "greatness": You will soon realize that it can't achieve anything without your assistance.

pfren is correct. There are reasons why all ICCF Correspodence players have  such a hierarchy in ratings and results.

I also happen to like 5...Nd5. Carlsen too!

having analysed this variation a lot I think white's only chance is the speculative 6.cxd4 Bb4+ 7. Nbd2!?

That said, the check from b4 is not obligatory- IMO Black is just fine after 6...d6.

The game was played a few years ago.  If I remember correctly, I did not like the resulting position after 12. Bd3

I think Hicenut means if one team is using computer assistance and the other team is not.

Nobody can argue that an engine with a good human player to apply principles and expertise that factor out past the engine's event horizon is better than an engine...and nobody can argue that the engines alone can massacre the best human on the planet with ease.

Heh. Space Invaders.

I think your sense of reality is abit skewed, btickler.

In my reality, I imagine Carlsen & many other Super GM's use those very same engines in their prep. Don't you think it's really inconceivable that they haven't beaten them in practice? Or draw? Puleez man.

I don't have the inclination to explain to you in entirety that Abstract Concepts totally make up every Human chessplayer's game. I'll just give a brief synopsis.

Positional play is the accumulation of small advantages in Force, Pawn structure, Time, Space, Mobility.

Tactics deal with undefended pieces, insufficiently defended pieces or the King, using pins, forks, discovered attacks, double attacks usually in combination. Also known as Combinational play.

A Mating attack is absolute. Concrete calculation is needed.

But creating a blockade, overprotecting a square, control of lines (diagonal, ranks, files), prophylaxis, light & dark square play are Abstract concepts. Ideas. Strategies realised through tactics, positional play using calculation.

Is any software able to conceive such a thing? I don't need to read up on any such article to give an opinion about this. There aren't any. Period.

Your move.