Pacifique, The first line you gave me ended in 12. Nd2 Nd5 and after
13. 0-0-0 White had a definite advantage.
Then pfren gave you a better line and the result was the machines gave White the normal opening move advantage but pfren thought it was objectively equal per his opinion [here I slightly disagree with phren--I think White does have the normal first move advantage.]
How much do you think the normal first move advantage is?
And how much do you think the evaluation of a given position can vary when a machine looks just one half-move deeper? :)
What I mean is. Can we actually put faith in the machines for this? I know ther evaluation is much better than my own, normally. But for making objective statements about a position?
There are some lines that analysis engines have difficulty evaluating. If this were not trur, the Smith-Morra would have many refutations to it but yet there is not many real solid lines against it barring inaccurate or blundering play by White if I am not mistaken.
Though I neither plat the Ponz or SMG, both are intersting lines to look into at least through the club level of play. I may do more reading on these as well. Thanks to Ponz for giving some new ideas for me to look into.
Pacifique, The first line you gave me ended in 12. Nd2 Nd5 and after
13. 0-0-0 White had a definite advantage.
Then pfren gave you a better line and the result was the machines gave White the normal opening move advantage but pfren thought it was objectively equal per his opinion [here I slightly disagree with phren--I think White does have the normal first move advantage.]
I asked you question about 9...dxc6 and 10...bxc6 lines - to show how White can have advantage here.
Your response:
1) Arguing on 10...dxc6 line;
2) Making empty claim that White has advantage after 10...bxc6 line without backing it up with variations.
Another evidence that arguing with fanatics like you is waste of time.
I think a lot of people are just tired, or ired, that a perfectly logical move like 3. c3 is thought of so lowly. I wouldn't consider myself a fanatic. But neither can I believe that c3 doesn't keep some sort of advantage. To me it seems that the basic idea should be sound. Black will have to give up something, or give you something, to prevent you from playing d4.
Pacifique, you conveniently forget what went on before.
First you claim to have a good line vs the Ponziani.
Second, you give lines which the book I coauthored says NOT to play.
Third, I give you the correct line.
Fourth, you expand on the line I gave you and after your expansion you claim that Black has a good position.
Fifth, I show your line where you think Black has a good position and give one move for White and then White clearly has the advantage.
Sixth, pfren, makes a corretion to your very flawed line and you take up the correction as your line also.
Seventh, the correction leads to a position where the machines says White has a normal first move advantage and pfren says he thinks the machines are incorrect in this case and essentially Black has an equal game. I slightly disagree with pfren and think the position gives White the normal first move advantage.
That is the sequence. Can I PROVE that in this one postion White has the normal first move advantage? No, of course that would be hard to prove.
But you are a very long way away from proving your claim that against the Ponziani Black can get very good positions. Your claim is somewhat ambigous in the first place as you can say that against any opening. For example, I can claim that against the Ruy Lopez Black can get very good positions and, of course my claim would be true.
So, just to prove a point I claim that against the Ruy Lopez - Black can get very good positions. DUH!
Demidjinn the Center Counter with 1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 used to also be thought of as a very bad opening [and there was at least some reason as the black queen is developed so early] but now, for most, it is an opening that even the world champ sometimes plays.
I had at least a part in rehabilitating that opening. Some still say it is not good but at least most will give concrete variations for their claim.
Pacifique, you conveniently forget what went on before.
First you claim to have a good line vs the Ponziani.
Second, you give lines which the book I coauthored says NOT to play.
Third, I give you the correct line.
Fourth, you expand on the line I gave you and after your expansion you claim that Black has a good position.
Fifth, I show your line where you think Black has a good position and give one move for White and then White clearly has the advantage.
Sixth, pfren, makes a corretion to your very flawed line and you take up the correction as your line also.
Seventh, the correction leads to a position where the machines says White has a normal first move advantage and pfren says he thinks the machines are incorrect in this case and essentially Black has an equal game. I slightly disagree with pfren and think the position gives White the normal first move advantage.
That is the sequence. Can I PROVE that in this one postion White has the normal first move advantage? No, of course that would be hard to prove.
But you are a very long way away from proving your claim that against the Ponziani Black can get very good positions. Your claim is somewhat ambigous in the first place as you can say that against any opening. For example, I can claim that against the Ruy Lopez Black can get very good positions and, of course my claim would be true.
So, just to prove a point I claim that against the Ruy Lopez - Black can get very good positions. DUH!
Don`t be such an arrogant jerk and look at your own flawed analysis (refuted by others) in this and other threads (they are many) before pointing finger on me.
You are still unable to prove any advantage for White in any these 4 lines given by me in #233, which means that you are unable to refute my statement that Black has a good game.
I`m not going waste my time any more to argue with you. Keep living in your imaginary world.
There is quite a bit of information on the forums for the group Ponziani Power. [ not that I don't want you to buy the book ]
There is more to the Ponziani than most people think. Especially if you are not prepared and do something like to play 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. c3 d5
and then if you have not studied the opening you run into 4. Qa4 which is hard to respond to if all you have is that 3.c3 d5 is susposed to be ok for Black.
I have seen high experts and some masters founder because they just assumed the Ponziani was an easy opening and when it came right down to a game--they did not know the moves.
While it is often said the Ponziani is a good opening through say the 2000 level [which is a LOT of chess players] I will differ because I have played The Ponziani way back when I had a rating of 2500 + and against my peers at the time.
And since that time--there have been a ton of improvements in this opening and quite a number of improvements are not yet published.
Yes, I agree your 10. ...bxc6 is a better try [and the best move in the position]
With 10. ... dxc6 Black is not doing well in my opinion.
Yes, I agree your 10. ...bxc6 is a better try [and the best move in the position]
With 10. ... dxc6 Black is not doing well in my opinion.
So your suggestion for White to have advantage after 10...bxc6 is...?
Btw - Black may afford to play 9...bxc6 too.
Pacifique, The first line you gave me ended in 12. Nd2 Nd5 and after
13. 0-0-0 White had a definite advantage.
Then pfren gave you a better line and the result was the machines gave White the normal opening move advantage but pfren thought it was objectively equal per his opinion [here I slightly disagree with phren--I think White does have the normal first move advantage.]
Just out of curiousity.
How much do you think the normal first move advantage is?
And how much do you think the evaluation of a given position can vary when a machine looks just one half-move deeper? :)
What I mean is. Can we actually put faith in the machines for this? I know ther evaluation is much better than my own, normally. But for making objective statements about a position?
There are some lines that analysis engines have difficulty evaluating. If this were not trur, the Smith-Morra would have many refutations to it but yet there is not many real solid lines against it barring inaccurate or blundering play by White if I am not mistaken.
Though I neither plat the Ponz or SMG, both are intersting lines to look into at least through the club level of play. I may do more reading on these as well. Thanks to Ponz for giving some new ideas for me to look into.
Pacifique, The first line you gave me ended in 12. Nd2 Nd5 and after
13. 0-0-0 White had a definite advantage.
Then pfren gave you a better line and the result was the machines gave White the normal opening move advantage but pfren thought it was objectively equal per his opinion [here I slightly disagree with phren--I think White does have the normal first move advantage.]
I asked you question about 9...dxc6 and 10...bxc6 lines - to show how White can have advantage here.
Your response:
1) Arguing on 10...dxc6 line;
2) Making empty claim that White has advantage after 10...bxc6 line without backing it up with variations.
Another evidence that arguing with fanatics like you is waste of time.
I think a lot of people are just tired, or ired, that a perfectly logical move like 3. c3 is thought of so lowly. I wouldn't consider myself a fanatic. But neither can I believe that c3 doesn't keep some sort of advantage. To me it seems that the basic idea should be sound. Black will have to give up something, or give you something, to prevent you from playing d4.
Pacifique, you conveniently forget what went on before.
First you claim to have a good line vs the Ponziani.
Second, you give lines which the book I coauthored says NOT to play.
Third, I give you the correct line.
Fourth, you expand on the line I gave you and after your expansion you claim that Black has a good position.
Fifth, I show your line where you think Black has a good position and give one move for White and then White clearly has the advantage.
Sixth, pfren, makes a corretion to your very flawed line and you take up the correction as your line also.
Seventh, the correction leads to a position where the machines says White has a normal first move advantage and pfren says he thinks the machines are incorrect in this case and essentially Black has an equal game. I slightly disagree with pfren and think the position gives White the normal first move advantage.
That is the sequence. Can I PROVE that in this one postion White has the normal first move advantage? No, of course that would be hard to prove.
But you are a very long way away from proving your claim that against the Ponziani Black can get very good positions. Your claim is somewhat ambigous in the first place as you can say that against any opening. For example, I can claim that against the Ruy Lopez Black can get very good positions and, of course my claim would be true.
So, just to prove a point I claim that against the Ruy Lopez - Black can get very good positions. DUH!
Demidjinn the Center Counter with 1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 used to also be thought of as a very bad opening [and there was at least some reason as the black queen is developed so early] but now, for most, it is an opening that even the world champ sometimes plays.
I had at least a part in rehabilitating that opening. Some still say it is not good but at least most will give concrete variations for their claim.
Against Nf6 and Nxe4, doesn't this just gain an edge:
I'm slightly worried about play down the h file but black does not have enough space to take advantage of this.
Pacifique, you conveniently forget what went on before.
First you claim to have a good line vs the Ponziani.
Second, you give lines which the book I coauthored says NOT to play.
Third, I give you the correct line.
Fourth, you expand on the line I gave you and after your expansion you claim that Black has a good position.
Fifth, I show your line where you think Black has a good position and give one move for White and then White clearly has the advantage.
Sixth, pfren, makes a corretion to your very flawed line and you take up the correction as your line also.
Seventh, the correction leads to a position where the machines says White has a normal first move advantage and pfren says he thinks the machines are incorrect in this case and essentially Black has an equal game. I slightly disagree with pfren and think the position gives White the normal first move advantage.
That is the sequence. Can I PROVE that in this one postion White has the normal first move advantage? No, of course that would be hard to prove.
But you are a very long way away from proving your claim that against the Ponziani Black can get very good positions. Your claim is somewhat ambigous in the first place as you can say that against any opening. For example, I can claim that against the Ruy Lopez Black can get very good positions and, of course my claim would be true.
So, just to prove a point I claim that against the Ruy Lopez - Black can get very good positions. DUH!
Don`t be such an arrogant jerk and look at your own flawed analysis (refuted by others) in this and other threads (they are many) before pointing finger on me.
You are still unable to prove any advantage for White in any these 4 lines given by me in #233, which means that you are unable to refute my statement that Black has a good game.
I`m not going waste my time any more to argue with you. Keep living in your imaginary world.
Ok, I will live in my imaginary world and you can live in yours!![Laughing]( "Laughing")
Perception is reality. We all live in ours. Maybe I should buy that book.![Smile]( "Smile")
The first opening I learned was Ponziani. Looks like there's still lots to learn.
There is quite a bit of information on the forums for the group Ponziani Power. [ not that I don't want you to buy the book![Laughing]( "Laughing")
]
There is more to the Ponziani than most people think. Especially if you are not prepared and do something like to play 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. c3 d5
and then if you have not studied the opening you run into 4. Qa4 which is hard to respond to if all you have is that 3.c3 d5 is susposed to be ok for Black.
I have seen high experts and some masters founder because they just assumed the Ponziani was an easy opening and when it came right down to a game--they did not know the moves.
While it is often said the Ponziani is a good opening through say the 2000 level [which is a LOT of chess players] I will differ because I have played The Ponziani way back when I had a rating of 2500 + and against my peers at the time.
And since that time--there have been a ton of improvements in this opening and quite a number of improvements are not yet published.
Sounds about right to me.
My chief concern with playing it would be how many opportunities does black have for transposing away from it, assuming black starts 1) e4, e5.
But that's always a problem when you play 1) e4.
Shepti 13 in your line White will very usually 0-0-0 rather than 0-0. But there are better ways to play that line for White--it is a little complex.
In your particular position you left the d pawn undefended [unless it was a gambit]
There are many White follow ups after these moves which some consider the main line of the Ponziani