Ponziani Opening

Scottrf

Was the girl who played it.

ponz111

She put up a good fight but in a bad position especially after the e6 really bad move.

C-nack

Yeah. Grandmasters like to gamble with openings. Van Wely played Nimzo-Indian today against Sokolov who just wrote the book about this opening. And he won! xD

ajmeroski

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X27cvLgwiWQ Carlsen's analyse of today's game

Scottrf

Thanks aj.

ponz111

One problem with writing a book on an opening variation is that other masters or grandmasters or supergrandmasters can look at the whole book and if they find one flaw....

C-nack
ponz111 wrote:

One problem with writing a book on an opening variation is that other masters or grandmasters or supergrandmasters can look at the whole book and if they find one flaw....

Van Wely said he was thinking of buying the move but he thought it may uncover his plans to use that opening.

ponz111

RE Carlsen

Watching his interview and watching his moves. This guy has a chess mind like some kind of a super chess engine.  I am amazed how he is willing to discuss such a complex game in detail and give variation after variation right on the spot when asked after the game.  And he is so quick when discussing long/hard/complex lines--just like a super computer. 

He is a boon to the chess world in that he is willing to give such an interview.  I am starting to think he is or may be the best player of all time.

Scottrf

'A year from, 2900 or world champion?'

'Both'.

'How would you assess your play so far?'

'It's OK, nothing more, but certainly nothing less.'

C-nack

Ponz, Super-GMs are like this. If you want to feel impressed further watch these videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGRjs7e6B8w (time - 0:22, amazing)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVcpelqT_Dw

ponz111

And he is honest!

Scottrf

Ha, that Leko interview reminds me of this one, but the Leko one is even better actually:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVfPIhlZw4U

ponz111

Vote Chess Game Just Finishing

ponz111

 Jempty   Because you say the Ponziani throws away White's advantage at the top does not mean the Ponziani throws away White's advantage at the top.

I have the right to sometimes post a good Ponziani game on this thread . There are plenty of people who will parrot others and just say the Ponziani is a bad opening and now there are more and more people who realize the real potential of the Ponziani Opening.

You posting some obscure line is not an anology to the Ponziani Opening.

Dark_N_Stormy_Knight

Jempty, doesn't black equalize instantly with d5?  you have to trade pawns, next you're looking at Be6 and another move of the queen.  You can't threaten anything on the queenside because the queen is blocking any threat the bishop might make at b5.  

Scottrf
FirebrandX wrote:
Scottrf wrote:

'A year from, 2900 or world champion?'

'Both'.

'How would you assess your play so far?'

'It's OK, nothing more, but certainly nothing less.'

I noticed Nakamura has this OCD thing with saying "It is what it is". Seems every post-game interview he says this now.

Yes, every time. He can't finish an interview without it.

Dark_N_Stormy_Knight

What kind of success are you getting with equal opponents with this opening.  The truth is in the pushing.  

ponz111

Because an opening is "obscure" does not make it bad. I remember quite a few years ago the Center Counter with 1. e4  d5  2. exd5  Qxd5  3.Nc3  Qa5 was considered by most as a rather bad opening.  I wrote a book on that opening anyway. And then played that opening in the 7th United States Correspondence Championship.  And then [this was back in the late 1980s] slowly other people started looking at this opening.  And then someone wrote a book and another book and the theory progressed to a world champion using that opening.

Back in the days of Morphy the Sicilian was an obscure opening but now we realize the Sicilian is a very viable opening.

Just putting a label on an opening does not make it a bad opening.

And while it is true I have played this opening for more than 25 years-I do not just play it out of habit and I have had much success with it and my play was with about 75% masters or above and 25% experts.

Also because Bruce Monson apparently loves and plays the Belgrade Gambit and because maybe that particular opening is not good--there is no anology with someone playing a completely different opening.

With your anology you could pick out someone who always plays 1. h4 and then say he has "Golden Hammer" syndrome and then compare 1. h4 with the Ponziani Opening. 

ponz111

Dark my success rate with the Ponziani with equal opponents was very good.

Among the last correspondence games I played. I won with the Ponziani in the prelims of the national championship and in the Finals of the national championship [with my peers] I scored 2 1/2 out of 3] [and before that had also good results]

DJAbacus

@jempty_method 

I don't think you understand the idea behind using an 'unusual opening'. In the Ponziani 3 c3 is clearly not the 'best move' to play in that position but it throws opponents (including GMs). If you have a lot of knowledge playing the Ponziani then this is a huge advantage. If black plays 'perfectly' after then they will get at least a draw. Of course, who plays perfect Chess? Even the top Grandmasters don't do that.