Ponziani: Impractical in non-computer Correspondence Chess?

SmyslovFan

I did not argue "that the Ponziani is not a bad move because it does not give black a better game." [Ponziani is an opening-not a move for one thing]

I also did not argue "that  since White cannot win, any move that does not lose in the opening isn't really bad."

Please read what I really said and do not misquote me. 

In practical play if someone makes a bad but not losing move that person will probably lose in the higher levels of chess.

However if someone makes a bad but not losing move and after that move both sides play perfectly the game will end in a draw.

In practical play if somebody makes a bad move [such as the  move we were discussing 4. d3] and playing a high level game his chances of losing are increased. 

  In a game which one player plays 4. d3?! and after that both players play perfectly White can probably hold the draw. 

I stick to what I am saying which is 4. d3?! is a bad move in practical play.

If some people want to disagree with my assessment, that is up to them. 

So no refutation, but 4.d3 is "bad move", because of Ponz`s inability to understand  Philidor Hanham setup, with extra tempo for white.

I agree 4. d3 is a bad move.  If for no other reason that it is no fun to play, especially after .... a5 and ... Bc5

LuisGruezo,

The Ponziani is rarely played because of propaghanda against it for decades.

That is why it is often a good weapon. People do not bother to prepare for it.  Why should they as it is rarely played?

However recent stats rate it high in performance.

I never said 4. d3 loses or is a good move. In fact I never said 4. d3 loses.

Also I did not say 4. d3 is a good move. I said it is a bad move.

Maybe you  should take Reading Comprehensions in some school?

It`s fun to outplay players like you, who lack understanding of Philidor Hahnam setup.

You could outplay for many other reasons too.

What you say is true only if they do not know how to play the Ponziani.

Yeah, we know how top GMs are swayed by propaganda about opening lines in this computer age. If only there were some way GMs could check for bias. As chess professionals, they would benefit so much if they had an unbiased training partner to help them to evaluate the merits of the various openings. 

Also we know that Ponz understands openings and chess in general better than any GM. :)

A request to see this game was made:

In the above game we decided to play a line that had not been publically discussed.  Unfortnately for us, our opponents played 30+ moves that exactly matched Houdini's choices.

In this game, dubbed by ponz111 as "Poziani Power's Swan Song", black had a 96% T3 match rate:

two losses against amazingly accurate teams.

The victim in these two games, team 'Ponziani Power', has been removed from Daws' private Vote Chess competitions for its high level of engine-like moves.

See http://www.chess.com/groups/forumview/teams-removed-from-rankings?page=1

Also true.

The Ponziani is only suitable up to about the 2500 level. [though I have played it above the 2500 level]

You can say this about a lot of openings played by people who read this.

The Scotch, Giuoco Piano, 4 knights, Bishops Openings, etc are also only suitable up to the 2500 level though in the past The Scotch was sometimes played at a higher level.

 I do not think there are too many people who read this who are above the 2500 level.

when you mention ''96% T3 match rate:'' you mean that 96% of the moves played are the ones suggested by the computer?

96% were the top three choices of the chess computer used to test.

While hicenut is correct about his comment, what he does not share is the methodology used does not support the conclusions hicenut frequently claims.  Daws uses the results for admission to private tournaments, which is fine.

You have no idea what you are talking about.