What are some of the key positions that the computer mis-evaluates?
Ponziani: Impractical in non-computer Correspondence Chess?
Sort:
kantifields wrote:
TitanCG wrote:
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.
You have certainly misunderstood me. I prefer white almost always. It is only against the Fraser that I think white is trying to survive.
I don't know the theoretical problems with the opening. It seems to me that White's play is often justified only by very complex and unnatural play that can be difficult to find with the clock running.
Fiveofswords wrote:
"I don't know the theoretical problems with the opening. It seems to me that White's play is often justified only by very complex and unnatural play that can be difficult to find with the clock running."
since white can also do this without playing a weak opening, this is not justification.
Do you know any openings in which White must resort to long tactical lines at move four or lose the advantage?
Jul 21, 2014
0
#29
alcor, this line highlights the issues of playing strictly computer moves versus Centaur. First the computer thinks black is losing when he drops the N on c6. One or two moves later it thinks black is better.
The same is true with your final position. It has black with a plus, but soon that advantage will shrink to pretty much even.
Even your 15... BxN can be replaced with 15... Rae8
Jul 21, 2014
0
#30
Yet some people are much better at it than others.
Dave Taylor took the black side of this in a Centaur tournament and played against Masters and Experts among others. He did not have a single loss and only had something like 2 draws.
Yo, so what happened to Dave Taylor? He used to post all the time last year, now he doesn't at all.
I wrote the Wikipedia article on him by the way.
Hadron wrote:
Who needs engines when Masters can win games for you.
Masters can lose games for you. A long time ago (before chess programs had affordable hardware to run on) I bought 2 books on the King's Gambit (Korchnoi & Zak, and Christiansen) hoping to improve my knowledge for correspondence play. I tried some lines out, and found I was losing to European players who knew that these lines were bad and knew how to crack them. I went back to the books, analyzed more deeply and critically, and found many poor assessments. Quite simply, those books are useful for historical purposes only and not for actually playing the game. Put not your trust in masters.
Jul 21, 2014
0
#34
rdecredico wrote:
And really, should be viewed with high amounts of pathos for those people obsessed with such idiocy over a board game.
I personally have never played Centaur chess, abd it sounds like you haven't either (at least not successfully). So neither of else has the credibility to judge it.
Jul 21, 2014
0
#35
steve_bute wrote:
Hadron wrote:
Who needs engines when Masters can win games for you.
Masters can lose games for you. A long time ago (before chess programs had affordable hardware to run on) I bought 2 books on the King's Gambit (Korchnoi & Zak, and Christiansen) hoping to improve my knowledge for correspondence play. I tried some lines out, and found I was losing to European players who knew that these lines were bad and knew how to crack them. I went back to the books, analyzed more deeply and critically, and found many poor assessments. Quite simply, those books are useful for historical purposes only and not for actually playing the game. Put not your trust in masters.
That can happen for lots of reasons... improvements found after publication for example. There is a funny story regarding Kortchnoi. Seem someone played a line that Kortchnoi recommended in ECO, only to be immediately crushed by none other than Kortchnoi. Kortchnoi later told his opponent something along the lines of "don't believe everything you read".
kantifields wrote:
steve_bute wrote:
Hadron wrote:
Who needs engines when Masters can win games for you.
Masters can lose games for you. A long time ago (before chess programs had affordable hardware to run on) I bought 2 books on the King's Gambit (Korchnoi & Zak, and Christiansen) hoping to improve my knowledge for correspondence play. I tried some lines out, and found I was losing to European players who knew that these lines were bad and knew how to crack them. I went back to the books, analyzed more deeply and critically, and found many poor assessments. Quite simply, those books are useful for historical purposes only and not for actually playing the game. Put not your trust in masters.
That can happen for lots of reasons... improvements found after publication for example. There is a funny story regarding Kortchnoi. Seem someone played a line that Kortchnoi recommended in ECO, only to be immediately crushed by none other than Kortchnoi. Kortchnoi later told his opponent something along the lines of "don't believe everything you read".
I've heard that story too. In the ever-so-slightly-improved wisdom of my middle age, I suspect that all published "positional assessments" by masters are done in skittles rooms with generous technical support from either Guinness or Smirnoff.
Jul 21, 2014
0
#37
steve_bute wrote:
kantifields wrote:
steve_bute wrote:
Hadron wrote:
Who needs engines when Masters can win games for you.
Masters can lose games for you. A long time ago (before chess programs had affordable hardware to run on) I bought 2 books on the King's Gambit (Korchnoi & Zak, and Christiansen) hoping to improve my knowledge for correspondence play. I tried some lines out, and found I was losing to European players who knew that these lines were bad and knew how to crack them. I went back to the books, analyzed more deeply and critically, and found many poor assessments. Quite simply, those books are useful for historical purposes only and not for actually playing the game. Put not your trust in masters.
That can happen for lots of reasons... improvements found after publication for example. There is a funny story regarding Kortchnoi. Seem someone played a line that Kortchnoi recommended in ECO, only to be immediately crushed by none other than Kortchnoi. Kortchnoi later told his opponent something along the lines of "don't believe everything you read".
I've heard that story too. In the ever-so-slightly-improved wisdom of my middle age, I suspect that all published "positional assessments" by masters are done in skittles rooms with generous technical support from either Guinness or Smirnov.
And yet, many of those are "unclear".
One of the recommended lines in the Queen´s Indian in the Openings for Black according to Karpov by Khalifman leads you to a losing position (that is tagged as "unclear").
What happened to David Taylor?
kantifields wrote:
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 played IMs in the challenge where I played 10 games as Black in the Ponziani. My final score in this challenge [computers were allowed and encouraged] was 8 wins and 2 draws. I remember some of them were against IMs.
I have studied the Fraser since then. It comes out to a draw as does all reasonable chess openings. The Ruy Lopez is a draw. 1. d4 is a draw etc.
If you know the best lines of the Fraser, it can be a big advantage for White as Black has to find many very good moves to avoid losing and in practical play this will not happen. In correspondence play this will probably not happen. There was a game published [before my exhibition match] where the current USA Champion played to a draw with Black--but I think both sides misanalized that game--Fraser can be that hard.
As for can the Ponziani be a "practical" opening? Yes, it can be and is!
If one knows the lines he will very often get a very good game--even against IMs as your opponents will not know the lines of defense.
Saying the Ponziani is a bad opening because of the 3rd move 3. c3 is rather stupid. It is like saying the Ruy Lopez is a bad opening because also in that opening White plays c3 in the opening.
I know a lot of masters who use the Ponziani as a back up. If they think their opponent will know the lines they [the masters] play--they switch to the Ponziani and often get better results than in their usual lines.
I have not posted much lately because of severe illnesses. However I do post in "Open Discussion"
Can the Ponziani be played at the very highest levels of Correspondence Chess? [Those who try for the championship of their countries] Probably yes as it has been misanaylzed at a very high level. Or probably not because this kind of chess has advanced so much that the Ponziani and the Ruy Lopez and all 1. e4 e5 openings lead to a draw. [Remember we are talking about very high levels--not the level of someone who thinks he knows about the Ponziani but will not give his rating]
Well, he was up a piece. But I can't disagree with you. It is more likely he was just having some fun. The game was played in a thematic tournament to become familiar with the opening. I doubt he has played this very much. A few move later he commented that 8. Be3 was a weak move.