Ponziani: Impractical in non-computer Correspondence Chess?

LuisGruezo is absolutely right.  His sequence avoids the piece sacrifice and gives an equal game.

 However, if I were White, I would not try to avoid the piece sacrifice.

Looks like there's ample support to me.  A pretty clear case of the cheating pot calling the cheating kettle black...

nope.  i am not accusing anyone of cheating, because I know that using T3 analysis does not show cheating in these circumstances for a variety of reasons.  From my perspective, i would not accuse anyone based on a single game.  From Daw's perspective, I would not accuse anyone for a dozen reasons.  For example, the method REQUIRES players of similar strengths.  So while we had a player of nearly 2500 strength playing against teams of random strengths, the method, as stated by a clear authority on the matter, cannot be appilied with credibility.  Nor can it be correctly applied with so few out of book moves.  Daws is comfortable with these issues, and since they are his private tournaments, he can do whatever he likes.  Hicenut, however, knows the method is being applied incorrectly and still goes around publically and privately dispariging teams and individuals.

There was no player of nearly 2500 strength in the Ponziani Power group.

When Daws asked to see the special opening book of the Ponziani Power group, in order to take into account their extra analysis, he was told it was impossible, because all the 30-moves long variations were written on "sheets of paper scattered in a room".

Ponz has never demonstrated 2500 strength...not on chess.com, anyway.  He's a paper tiger.

You implications are clear when you disparage other groups for extremely accurate play yet exempt your own group from the same scrutiny based on a well-past-his-prime player's claimed-but-no-longer-displayed skill level.

Hicenut, please take your nonsense somewhere else.

I personally told Daws to join the groups and view all the analysis he wanted to see.

Ponz retired as a 2500+ non-computer correspondence player.  I imagine he is less now so I dropped him 100 points.  In any event we rarely played anyone of master strength.  We only played 13 games at the time of review, and had around two hundred out of book moves.  Any of those conditions would invalidate the T3 method.

None of that matters because Daws was making decisions based on his tournaments, so no problem there.

"... not on chess.com"  That may be correct, neither of us have a way to test that.  "Never" is completely untrue.  I am not sure if you are misinformed or attempting to mislead.

"Ponz" refers to a chess.com account, and that's it.  I don't really care what David Taylor does/did.

I respect Ponz for having written a book and for his correspondence accomplishments years ago. But those accomplishments were indeed years ago. He's no longer as good as he once was, not by a long stretch. 

I did analyse more than 200 pages of vote chess game commentary from the ponziani group. There was no secret opening book that stretched for 30 moves. There were a few players who conveniently added extremely precise calculations to brand new positions and pretended they had them all along, after the fact.

Go and look through the game notes yourself, kanti. Other teams clearly used engines. Players on ponziani power also clearly used engines too.  Several of those players have since had their accounts closed. Some have not.

???  I think you win.  You have written the dumbest thing I have read in this forum!

I'm sorry you can't understand the distinction.  We can only go by performance that we see, not by anecdotal evidence.  About the only high-rated opponent of note I have seen Ponz play was FM Bluebird...but oops, FM Bluebird was banned for engine use (what a small world), so that leaves...

Smyslov, I was a member on every one of the games you are talking about.  Our analysis was not just in the team comments, but in forums as well.  But you are correct that sometimes the analysis looked too good.  I definitely agree with that for three of our games (two of which Ponz was on). 

What you are incorrect about is the several players had their accounts closed part.  Experise appears to have closed his own account.  Wortiest was a late comer who was banned during our last lost while he was playing for the opposing team!!  No other contributing member has had their account closed.

Worstiest also closed his own account.  Perhaps you should concentrate on getting your own information straight before you cast aspersions around.  Funny how are willing to throw a "late comer" under the bus and imply engine use on other teams, but then try to support some ridiculous notion of only a few games being tainted from Ponziani Power.

Wake up.

ok. so no contributing member had their account closed.

I assumed, incorrectly I guess, that Worstiest was banned because all of his comments disappeared when his account was closed.  That seems to happen with banned players and not with peolple who close their own accounts.

How do you know Wortiest closed his account??  All of his comments are gone, while Expertise's remain.

Actually, I saw The_Worthiest on the cheating list some while ago.

I'm 100% sure.

I thought the name wasn't wortiest or Worthiest, but "The_Worstiest". Kinda makes a difference when talking about who's on a list.

Because he was a member of several votechess teams I had played on, and I specifically looked after his account closed to see if he had a banned symbol ;).

I suppose he may have been banned later, but he definitely closed his own account first and was not banned when he did so.  And yes, the account name was The_Worstiest.

I think I know why he left.  It's not a big deal, but I did kinda know him.  If you want me to say just ask.

Right now I aint what I used to be.  But if you will look at my two recent exhibition matches you might see at that point, I was still playing well.

In both exhibition matches I took Black in all the games. This was Centaur

Chess with computers allowed and encouraged.  With Black vs the Ponziani I scored 8 wins and 2 draws.  With Black vs the Kings Gambit, I scored fairly well also--don't remember my exact score. Centaur Chess is very drawish so it is hard to win with White and especially hard to win with Black.   

I have written 3 books on chess.

Have met the requirements to be a USCF master beating an over-the-board grandmaster in the process.

Stopped playing over the board in 1973 because I was MUCH stronger than master in postal chess [correspondence chess] So Correspondence chess interested me more than over the board. Besides I had health problems which kept me from playing over the board.

Won many correspondence tournaments but my best was:

I won the 7th United States Correspondence Chess Championship with a score in the finals of 13 wins and 1 draw and zero losses. Won all my games [7] with Black which is a record which will never be broken.

After that I played in some internet exhibition games where I did well.

My games and chess opening theory have been included in several chess books.

In the current ICCF USA [this is USA Correspondence Chess] Top 50 list [top 50 players in the United States] There are 4 GMs at the top of the list.  #2 Stephen Ham I have won from  #3 Daniel Fleetwood I have won from.

 So there are 3 GMs living today I have won from.  Have never lost or drawn vs a GM, over-the-board or Correspondence.

I still have a ICCF rating of about 2530 [something like that] but it is inactive.

So, if some chess players want to belittle me and my chess, they are free to do so.