To mainline_novelty (post #155): the table of contents for that book says that the ponziani and rarely played moves begin on page 66. This page is probably some sort of introduction, so I would look on page 67. Good luck.
Sorry to divert the current discussion once again, but I own said book, and L&O recommend 3...d5 with, as far as I can tell, no discussion of 3...Nf6.
There is a whole lot more to the Fraser than both teams knew. My analysis had refuted the lines played by both teams.
Now everyone is afraid of the Fraser but they do not need to be.
While it is undoubtedly true that Ponz knows more about the Fraser than anyone on either team, the Ponziani group intentionally played a line we knew would be inferior in if our opponents played perfect moves. We wanted to keep our winning streak alive, so we avoided known drawing lines and opted to play for a win. The only thing that felt could prevent us from winning was perfect play. That decision, and the line we played were agreed upon almost at the outset.
Our team member, Expertise, claimed that he had databased the line while playing a Centaur match with Ponz. The member on the BFG just happened to also be able to pull off 30+ Houdini moves that matched our prepared Houdini moves. Perhaps their player also databased the line from somewhere. I don't know. I do know the game was boring. No original moves were played until the end when we lost.
I commented on this post becuse it at least is connected to the thread topic. Most people here posting seem to know little or nothing about the Ponziani, and are here to be argumentative and disdainful.
Take it somewhere else.
So, if some chess players want to belittle me and my chess, they are free to do so.
I am not belittling anyone's OTB accomplishments. I am pointing out that when on chess.com, the only evidence that counts is the evidence available. The claim from Kantfields that Ponziani Power was backed by a 2500-strength player, and thus is apparently above suspicion for cheating while other teams are not...is not really true.
To be clear, I said nearly 2500 strength, and was referring to correspondence. The point of the comment was that even if he analyzes at 2300 at this point (250 points below his peak), if opponents are at varied strengths, T3 analysis is not valid to make dispariging claims. T3 analysis is also not valid for so few games. It is also not valid for so few out of book moves. It is also not valid in VC.
We can still point to T3 match rates, we just cannot draw reliable conclusions.
@btickler
If you have read what I have said here and elsewhere, you know that I do not believe we were above suspicion. I was very suspicious of three games. The loss to the BFG is not among them.
Do you play or have an interest in learning the Ponziani? It seems you do not, and simply look for opportunities to rabble rouse.
There is a whole lot more to the Fraser than both teams knew. My analysis had refuted the lines played by both teams.
Now everyone is afraid of the Fraser but they do not need to be.
While it is undoubtedly true that Ponz knows more about the Fraser than anyone on either team, the Ponziani group intentionally played a line we knew would be inferior in if our opponents played perfect moves. We wanted to keep our winning streak alive, so we avoided known drawing lines and opted to play for a win. The only thing that felt could prevent us from winning was perfect play. That decision, and the line we played were agreed upon almost at the outset.
Our team member, Expertise, claimed that he had databased the line while playing a Centaur match with Ponz. The member on the BFG just happened to also be able to pull off 30+ Houdini moves that matched our prepared Houdini moves. Perhaps their player also databased the line from somewhere. I don't know. I do know the game was boring. No original moves were played until the end when we lost.
I commented on this post becuse it at least is connected to the thread topic. Most people here posting seem to know little or nothing about the Ponziani, and are here to be argumentative and disdainful.
Take it somewhere else.
Expertise has a closed account. His cheating became obvious to me, due to his comments, after our game.
Very interesting topic.
Pacifique, from which nation did you receieve your National Master title?
It wasn't one of those small Pacific island "nations" was it? That's the impression your user name gives after all.
It`s not business of sockpuppet trolls like you.
I am not a sockpuppet. I am J. Musacha of Miami, Florida.
My address is 100 South Pointe Drive,
Apartment 2501
Miami Beach, Florida 33139
You are invited any time.
@btickler
If you have read what I have said here and elsewhere, you know that I do not believe we were above suspicion. I was very suspicious of three games. The loss to the BFG is not among them.
Do you play or have an interest in learning the Ponziani? It seems you do not, and simply look for opportunities to rabble rouse.
Yes, I am fully aware that you feel that your team cheated, but "only 2-3 times", and that for some reason the same set of players refrained from cheating in every other game...this is called denial ;).
I've read all the comments in the BFG/PP game from both sides, and Expertise87 was clearly BSing when we he claimed to be referring to prepared lines. He was justifying his engine moves. The fact that you can't see this even in hindsight is...startling. Now, I don't doubt the original idea of deviating at move...12, was it? was pre-planned, and that the general direction of the game might have been discussed in relation to previous games, but do I believe as you do that Expertise87 had pages and pages of printouts of all the possible variations from move 12 to move 30 as he claimed? No. And if you really read his comments, it's obvious, because at several points he seems to refer to certain moves as if they are new ideas, or wrinkles that he had to consider from scratch.
BFG's defense was driven by a banned player, and so BFG cheated. I'm not disputing that at all. That's why I am not playing any new votechess games for them. It's the "holier than thou" attitude of implying that any cheating that PP does in their games is instead deep analysis and understanding of the game, but almost exactly similar "amazingly accurate" play by other teams is dubious and suspect that bothers me ;).
And if you had never started going astray with this and what soon followed, I never would have ended up commenting at all (and I am done unless more stuff that needs refuting gets thrown out there...):
kantifields wrote:
two losses against amazingly accurate teams.
I am not a sockpuppet. I am J. Musacha of Miami, Florida.
My address is 100 South Pointe Drive,
Apartment 2501
Miami Beach, Florida 33139
You are invited any time.
ROFL
Please learn to comport yourself with the dignity expected of a titled player.
There is a whole lot more to the Fraser than both teams knew. My analysis had refuted the lines played by both teams.
That is interesting. Where could each team have improved? I assume this means after move 12, since that appears to be where white chooses which line he will play.
And importantly, what does 'refuted' mean in this context? Do you mean both teams had a win at some point?
By "refuted" I mean both teams made a big mistake in analysis at some point.
Where each team could have improved? This information is known by me and only a very few others.
What move or moves could be improved and what is the correct analysis of the Fraser variation? This in known by me and some parts of my analysis are known by a very few others.
[maybe I will give out this knowledge and analysis before I die and maybe I won't--as who knows--I could die at any time.]
[it is in my records, so even if I die, my son could give out the information]
Here is a game I played as black- non-computer correspondence.
Nice game but you realize White did not make the correct moves?
@h101
Thanks for bringing the topicback
@ponz111
Of course I realize that mistakes were made. Presumably I made some as well. Nice thing about chess the way I prefer it.
A recent Fraser win:
Dave Taylor beat a FIDE master who tried white's moves in a centaur game. I deviated from Dave's precise line.
This game was played on faith that white was losing! Therefore attack and crowd the king. Midway I missed a forced draw for white. When I asked my opponent about it, he said he was trying to win at that point.
A long time ago I played in a chess team, but missed a match against a team whose board 1 had just published a deeply theoretic book on a complex opening system for black. Our team board 1 played white straight down the main line upon which the book depended and which the author assessed as being slightly better for black. At the end of the line, white made 1 original move and smiled as black realized he was dead lost, and his book was busted. The author lost it and leapt across the board, pieces flying, and the players had to be physically separated.
BTW I like centaur chess, even when limited to a weak engine. I rarely follow the engines on every move for many reasons, but especially when they do not understand ideas that extend beyond their anaysis tree. I like Hiarcs, because when I show it a relevant variation beyond its depth, it can remember it and factor it into its analysis. It is prone to missing long term positional intermezzos.
There is a whole lot more to the Fraser than both teams knew. My analysis had refuted the lines played by both teams.
Now everyone is afraid of the Fraser but they do not need to be.