@ponz
Your quote of me is a little out of context. When I wrote that I could not find IM or GM games the discussion was referring to databases where the Fraser was played through move 12.
I had previously cited your results in your Centaur exhibition.
@ponz
Your quote of me is a little out of context. When I wrote that I could not find IM or GM games the discussion was referring to databases where the Fraser was played through move 12.
I had previously cited your results in your Centaur exhibition.
Ok, they will or should be in data bases now.
ponz says that the Ponziani is comparable to other openings in that best play leads to a draw, which is likely correct, but the difference is that in this line it appears that black is the one pushing for a win, and white has the more difficult position. This is where it is different from other popular openings, e.g. Ruy Lopez or Queen's gambit.
That is the thrust of this forum. OTB the Fraser must be difficult to play as black; however, Ponz has shown it to be a wasted white in Centaur, and I am starting to suspect it is a wasted white in non-computerized CC.
ponz says that the Ponziani is comparable to other openings in that best play leads to a draw, which is likely correct, but the difference is that in this line it appears that black is the one pushing for a win, and white has the more difficult position. This is where it is different from other popular openings, e.g. Ruy Lopez or Queen's gambit.
Sure, with me winning 8 and drawing 2 with the Fraser line of the Ponziani it does appear that in that line Black is the one pushing for a win and White is the one pushing for a draw.
In the 7th USA Correspondence Championship I scored with Black 7 wins and no losses and no draws. Does this mean that in chess Black loses or is fighting not to lose or does it mean that I can play really good with Black?
If White knows the best play in the Fraser line, he will have nothing to worry about at all. All his games will be wins and draws.
And that is in Correspondence Chess and in Centaur Chess.
In over-the-board chess and tournament chess [such as USCF] you will hardly ever see the Fraser variation. If you do you will still have the advantage.
If you do not see the Fraser variation [ you will NOT see probably more than 90% of the time] then you will have the usual advantage of playing a viable opening which you know and your opponent does not know.
The Ruy Lopez is a great opening. But, of course there is a drawing line vs that opening. The Ruy Lopez has 10 times the theory of the Ponziani.
I do not have a cacoethes. If I were playing again, I would play the Ponziani.
Much easier to learn and play the Ponziani.
And quite frankly, it is much easier to learn the Scotch than the Ponziani, so this whole idea of easy to learn//low theory is bankrupt as well.
I agree. Especially since in the Scotch you basically just need to learn the theory and ideas, whereas in the Ponzi you have to do so as well as find some way for White to not be worse in the 3...d5 4 Qa4 line...
There are several systems where the 3. c3 d5 4. Qa4 is usually better for White and never worse. Because some people do not know this or do not know the lines does not make it untrue.
It is silly for someone such as redecredico to comment on the Ponziani when he does not know the lines and does not have much knowledge of chess.
The Ponziani is one of the less complicated openings to learn but I will agree that the Scotch is probably less complicated.
I honestly don't understand the big whoop about the Ponziani. If an opening isn't played often on a high level there's probably a good reason for it. True, it can be used as a surprise weapon in OTB play, but even if black doesn't know the lines he should have no problem getting a comfortable game.
Actually one of the points of the Ponziani is when your opponent does not know the lines, he fairly often gets a bad or lost position.
I have seen this happen often. That is why the Ponziani is so successful in practical play.
Fraser is a defense to the Ponziani? Or a variation of white?
Fraser is a defense to the Ponziani? Or a variation of white?
It is a defense to the Ponziani Very complicated.
I will give the first part.
In over-the-board chess and tournament chess [such as USCF] you will hardly ever see the Fraser variation. If you do you will still have the advantage.
If you do not see the Fraser variation [ you will NOT see probably more than 90% of the time] then you will have the usual advantage of playing a viable opening which you know and your opponent does not know.
The Ruy Lopez is a great opening. But, of course there is a drawing line vs that opening. The Ruy Lopez has 10 times the theory of the Ponziani.
I do not have a cacoethes. If I were playing again, I would play the Ponziani.
I have issue with these statements. The first two assume that your black opponent does not know the relevant theory. There is no reason to assume this is the case. You specifically state that even if the opponent plays the Fraser variation white will still have the advantage. This is false.
Secondly, while the Ruy Lopez does have a lot of theory, white does not need to know very much to play the game well. Just the basic tabiya and common themes.
Lastly, I am not familiar with the word cacoethes. I will assume you mean cojones. joke)
Most players do not have a defense to play vs the Ponziani. Sometimes all they know is 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. c3 d5 I have seen this time after time and then after 4. Qa4 they do not know how to continue.
Most times the Black player does not know the opening--I have experienced this in person and also have seen games of others where this is true. The propaghanda against the Ponziani has been so high that many do not prepare for it.
This is one reason masters may use it as a surprise weapon.
I did not say that even if the opponent plays the Fraser that White will have the advantage. I said if White knows the lines [of the Fraser] he will get some wins and some draws.
However the chance that someone will study the Fraser with its vast complications and be ready to play it are quite slim. Some master may try it but even then, I doubt if he would know or find all the lines. A booked up White has no trouble with that very complicated line.
You need to remember chess is a draw. The Ruy Lopez is a draw. The English Opening [one of the best openings] is a draw. The Queens Gambit [said to be the best opening by results] is a draw. The Ponziani [in the top 10 by results just behind the Ruy Lopez] is a draw.
The Ruy Lopez does not have a lot of theory if you play it at below the master level. Actually it has about 10 times the theory of the Ponziani.
However if you are below master strength you could argue any opening you play does not have much theory if you mean not much theory that you know.
"cacoethes" means an urge to do something inadvisable.
You are correct that line is fine against the Ponziani and White only has a rather small advantage.
The player with White who knows the theory will still have some advantage over Black who does not know the theory.
I have seen this line played several times most with White winning but again in theory White has a slim advantage and in theory this line and any line starting with 1. e4 e5 is a draw.
The top Centaur players like to see 1. e4 as they can play e5 and can get a draw. They play for draws as Black and try to win a few with White. [not like my day before chess engines when I tried very hard to win with White and Black. [Talking about ICCF Correspondence Chess.]
You are correct that line is fine against the Ponziani and White only has a rather small advantage.
The player with White who knows the theory will still have some advantage over Black who does not know the theory.
I have seen this line played several times most with White winning but again in theory White has a slim advantage and in theory this line and any line starting with 1. e4 e5 is a draw.
The top Centaur players like to see 1. e4 as they can play e5 and can get a draw. They play for draws as Black and try to win a few with White. [not like my day before chess engines when I tried very hard to win with White and Black. [Talking about ICCF Correspondence Chess.]
Based on this, the Ponziani is busted in Centaur chess with the Fraser not even being needed. In Correspondence Chess, the Fraser goes a long way in busting Ponziani's hopes for a win.
So why play the Ponziani in CC? To prepare to play it OTB and in blitz I suppose... at least those are my reasons.
An opening is not "busted" unless you can win or get a good advantage against it. "busted" Is the wrong term being used here.
But at the highest [very highest] levels of Centuar Chess the Black side should be able to draw agaist 1. e4
All Black has to do is respond 1. e4 e5! and in the very highest levels of Centaur chess the side with Black can draw.
All Black has to do is play 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6! which is the Petroff Defense. The very highest Centaur players have analyzed and analyzed the Petroff to a draw. They can hold the draw.
So, by your term [Kantifields] "busted" Then the 4 Knights, The Ruy Lopez, The Scotch Game, The Giucco Piano and other similar openings are busted as Black can hold a draw at the highest levels of Centaur.
Actually there are good defenses vs any reply after 1. e4 so also the Caro Khan, The Sicilan, The Pirc etc are also "busted" [by your terminology]
Only Against 1. d4 or 1. c4 or 1 Nf3 are there not yet clear lines to draw with Black. Of course these openings are also a draw and it is just a matter of time to find the drawing defenses against them
However if you are not playing Centaur Chess at the very highest levels then The Ruy Lopez, The Sicilian, The Pirc, The Scotch, and The Ponziani are just fine. [Wish I was more effable on these subjects]
Some Ponziani Players are afraid of the Fraser Defense. I think this may be because of my score WITH BLACK of 8 wins, 2 draws, and no loses in a recent exhibition of Centaur Chess against masters and experts.
But what is not realized is maybe I am a very good chess player?. I had a similar result in an Exhibition playing Black against the Kings Gambit also.
I hold a USA record [which will never be matched] of scoring 7 wins and no losses and no draws WITH BLACK in the 7th USA Correspondence Championship.
What some Ponziani Players do not realize is that I know both sides of the Fraser and know the right lines for White.
It is just silly not to play the Ponziani because you are afraid of the Fraser. An example of cacoethes.
However, there is and always has been many negative posts against the Ponziani. Some are criticasters. A few are blatherskites. Some make more legitimate criticism even sometimes with Attic salt! This is eucatastrophe as 93% of chess players do not have a good defense that they have studied vs the Ponziani.
It is busted if balck's goal is to achieve a draw with black as you stated, "The top Centaur players like to see 1. e4 as they can play e5 and can get a draw. They play for draws as Black and try to win a few with White. "
The Fraser assures that result at worst for black in Centaur Chess. Since Black's goal is achieved... white is busted. I will stick with that term.
I think "afraid to play the Ponziani" is an overstatement. Looking foe alternatives is more accurate. We recently lost a game while looking for an alternative... dubbed our "swan song". While it is true we were crushed, it is also true our opponents had almost a 96% T3 match rate. Against that level of opposition, I am only aware of one or two people who could have survived. Of them, one has had their account closed.
kantifields
You still are using the term "busted" incorrectly.
I do not know what you mean by "The fraser assures that the result at worst for Black in Centaur Chess."
Do you mean, you think that in Centaur Chess if you play the Fraser as Black in Centaur Chess, the worse you will get is a draw."
If that is what you mean then I disagree. Have you studied the Fraser enough so you can get through all the complications? Are you up on analysis which may have been done after my exhibition?
By your reasoning you could just as well say "If you play Black after 1. e4 in Centaur Chess the reply 1. e4 e5 assures a draw"
In the Vote Chess game you mentioned Ponziani Power made this rather bad mistake:
I do not know anyone who would have had much of a chance to even hold a draw after the 4. d3?! d5 sequence.
I think you are afraid of the Fraser and chose this very bad 4. d3?! just to avoid the Fraser.
A better way would be to analyze the Fraser and find the best moves for White.
I do not know anyone who would have had much of a chance to even hold a draw after the 4. d3?! d5 sequence.
I think you are afraid of the Fraser and chose this very bad 4. d3?! just to avoid the Fraser.
A better way would be to analyze the Fraser and find the best moves for White.
Think what you want.
Btw, I held a draw against a strong opponent with 4. d3.
If the goal for black in Centaur Chess is as you stated, to draw so they can try to win with white. Then the Fraser does that in a Ponziani with ease. If you had a million dolloar Centaur game with white and had to give draw odds and knew your opponent would play the Fraser, you would not play the Ponziani. It might also be true that you would not play 1. e4 at all; but this forum is about the Ponziani, so I am interested in discussions about the Ruy or Scotch or, etc.
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.
The reason some people are better is they spend more time pushing the horizon and don't quit after finding one set of good moves.
Its that simple.
As for taking the Black side of the Ponziani...well anyone with a functioning chess brain would do likewise and would find themselves winning as well.
rdecredico You do not know what you are talking about. Do you really think if you had been substituted for me in that exhibition match that you would have scored [AS BLACK] 8 wins and 2 draws? [You probably would have had a minus score]
You are absolutely wrong in your contention that some people are better as "as they spend more time pushing the horizon and don't quit after finding one set of good moves." There is a hell of a lot more to playing and winning Centaur Chess than that. The most important out of many reasons some play better at that game is they understand the game better.
But there are a host of other reasons also.