There were several places along the way where White could do better.
This is one of two published "refutations" to the Ponziani and I have been studying this particular variation but I have more study left as the variations can get very complex. When someone plays the line against us at vote chess I will use what I have so far. [I have more than one possible answer]
The other published "refutation" to the Ponziani is already covered and taken care of in Play the Ponziani.
Of course I'm not trying to claim the Ponziani is refutable. I'm just showing that with the most complicated tries by black, it's actually white on the defensive attempting to hold the draw. That's always been my point about the Ponziani's dubious nature.
In the game I posted, white was not a fumbling idiot. In fact, he's a titled CC player that reached as high as 2500+ some years back. So it's real easy for people in this thread to claim and gripe that white played poorly, but the thruth is each and every person making those gripes would have also been struggling to save a draw against Mr. Dunlap in that line.
Since I'm trying to post lines and actual games and getting nothing but grief and scoffs over it, I'm not going to bother any more. I personally know that black has the better game with best play, not that any of us could rattle off the best moves in a live game, but nevertheless it doesn't change the thruth about the evaluation.
A database has millions (mine has 4.5 mil) of games and works like Chess.com's Game Explorer.
An engine can only analyze from one place in a game, but mine will do 3 variations. You can only trust it for a few moves since the variables in chess are so vast. The engine has changed the way we play chess and so many engine variations are in everyday play and in the databases now they can hardly be separated anymore.
My database came with ChessKingPro, (don't buy it), but often ends the suggestions after 10 moves or so.
There are ChessBase engines with many more games and up to date within a few months. But the MegaBase costs $354.95. It is pretty amazing all the stuff it can do. It uses an online database of 5 million games which are the most current. I'd have it if I could afford it.
Firebrandx I think you are assuming that the two players [good as they are] have found the best moves. Or that one has found a good line vs the ponziani. Did you ever think that there may be lines that neither saw which are very playable for White.? Because a line or game is on a data base and because two very good players played the line-- and because the game was played ten moves for 50 days, and because they had the help of chess engines--- does not mean that they didn't miss a whole lot.
I have a correspondence data base and have noticed there are a whole lot of players on many current lines playing much inferior moves. The data base helps me to follow what currently may be playing but does not help me in finding the optimum moves because invariably the players do not find the best or optimum moves.
>person 1 produces sample game >person 2 claims they played poorly
Surely it is easier if person 2 provides the line with best play up to say move 20, and person 1 (who believes black is better or equal) gives improvements if the line shows that white is better at the end.
That won't happen. I know Firebrand is a strong player. I personally take his analysis seriously because I plan on using this line over the board. I am currently analyzing his recent line with other enthusiasts. The problem is that none of us (Firebrand included) did not participate in that game and do not know why some of the moves were played (10 moves 50 days engines on).
Those conditions have little to do with my chess world. What I mean is Carlsen would defeat almost anyone in the world with either side of that game starting at move 10.
That means the opening is sound for over the board chess!
Fear, the problem is this particilar line is one of two "refutations" to the Ponziani and the theory is very complex and will not be settled here on this forum at this time.
99% of the lines, sure I can and have given lines and counter lines. But this particular variation is so complex that a book could be written just on this line. It may come up in a vote chess game or some other venue and if it is vote chess will use what I have. But until I can complete the theory pertaining to this line--No use going into this particular line futher, If someone wants to express their views fine .
It would be nice if Ponz were to defend his claim with concrete analysis instead of saying that he's holding back. If this opening meant very much to me, I'd wade in and try to work out what Ponz is hiding. But it just doesn't. And that's the entire reason that both Magnus Carlsen and Hou Yifan played it: nobody studies it in depth.
There are published challenges to Ponz's book, citing errors and lacunae in the text. He's aware of some of these criticisms. Marin offers a comfortable line for Black to play. Gustafsson, in a Chessbase DVD, gives a line that is good enough for equality. Kaufman offers a line that gives Black practical winning chances.
One game mentioned in the reviews which challenges Ponz's book is W.Ottenweller-G.Aalderink, email 2005.
Ponz, do you plan to write a second edition that will deal with these and other criticisms of your book?
It was not an accusation. Not at all. You showed a game against a program. I simply mean play against a person instead. Leave your computer off. You have strong opinions about the Ponziani, I am asking you for a friendly game to see if I can change your mind.
Ok, so what about this line? Do you disagree with anything that is said below? If so what, and why?
Almost completely =. Marin points out that to have any hope of successfully using his space advantage white would need to conduct pawn offensive on both wings without simplifying too much. This is obviously very difficult to do, not to mention that while doing this you would also need to stop black from neutralising the space advantage.
Smyslovfan, there are two basic "refutations" to the Ponziani recently out.
One is by Kaufman.
One of the "refutations" is already covered in Play the Ponziani--apparently the author of the book with the refutation had not seen Play the Ponziani.
The other "refutation" from Kaufman is harder and already shown here on this forum. I am working on several replies and am satisfied with my new theory so far but it is very complex and I am not ready to use it now unless it comes up in an actual vote chess game against Ponziani Power.
I am checking and rechecking my new theory--already I did find one flaw and had to redo a good part of my theory.
In the meantime the Ponziani is good enough for almost anyone and will continue to be ok despite what some may say about it.
Except for this little bit of new theory I am working on --am quite willing to discuss any line in the Ponziani.
There were several places along the way where White could do better.
This is one of two published "refutations" to the Ponziani and I have been studying this particular variation but I have more study left as the variations can get very complex. When someone plays the line against us at vote chess I will use what I have so far. [I have more than one possible answer]
The other published "refutation" to the Ponziani is already covered and taken care of in Play the Ponziani.
Sorry I took the pot shot Firebrand. It was not cool.
Correspondence Chess with the aid of a chess engine has its place.
There are skills envolved.
I just do not know what chess engines mean. Databases? Computer analysis? I am simply ignorant here.
Of course I'm not trying to claim the Ponziani is refutable. I'm just showing that with the most complicated tries by black, it's actually white on the defensive attempting to hold the draw. That's always been my point about the Ponziani's dubious nature.
In the game I posted, white was not a fumbling idiot. In fact, he's a titled CC player that reached as high as 2500+ some years back. So it's real easy for people in this thread to claim and gripe that white played poorly, but the thruth is each and every person making those gripes would have also been struggling to save a draw against Mr. Dunlap in that line.
Since I'm trying to post lines and actual games and getting nothing but grief and scoffs over it, I'm not going to bother any more. I personally know that black has the better game with best play, not that any of us could rattle off the best moves in a live game, but nevertheless it doesn't change the thruth about the evaluation.
A database has millions (mine has 4.5 mil) of games and works like Chess.com's Game Explorer.
An engine can only analyze from one place in a game, but mine will do 3 variations. You can only trust it for a few moves since the variables in chess are so vast. The engine has changed the way we play chess and so many engine variations are in everyday play and in the databases now they can hardly be separated anymore.
My database came with ChessKingPro, (don't buy it), but often ends the suggestions after 10 moves or so.
There are ChessBase engines with many more games and up to date within a few months. But the MegaBase costs $354.95. It is pretty amazing all the stuff it can do. It uses an online database of 5 million games which are the most current. I'd have it if I could afford it.
.
I'm glad Chess is only a one on one game.
Ponziani is a cool opening, probably would play it if there weren't so many people playing the french, boring stuff.
Firebrandx I think you are assuming that the two players [good as they are] have found the best moves. Or that one has found a good line vs the ponziani. Did you ever think that there may be lines that neither saw which are very playable for White.? Because a line or game is on a data base and because two very good players played the line-- and because the game was played ten moves for 50 days, and because they had the help of chess engines--- does not mean that they didn't miss a whole lot.
I have a correspondence data base and have noticed there are a whole lot of players on many current lines playing much inferior moves. The data base helps me to follow what currently may be playing but does not help me in finding the optimum moves because invariably the players do not find the best or optimum moves.
this really seems to be going back and forth
>person 1 produces sample game
>person 2 claims they played poorly
Surely it is easier if person 2 provides the line with best play up to say move 20, and person 1 (who believes black is better or equal) gives improvements if the line shows that white is better at the end.
That won't happen. I know Firebrand is a strong player. I personally take his analysis seriously because I plan on using this line over the board. I am currently analyzing his recent line with other enthusiasts. The problem is that none of us (Firebrand included) did not participate in that game and do not know why some of the moves were played (10 moves 50 days engines on).
Those conditions have little to do with my chess world. What I mean is Carlsen would defeat almost anyone in the world with either side of that game starting at move 10.
That means the opening is sound for over the board chess!
Fear, the problem is this particilar line is one of two "refutations" to the Ponziani and the theory is very complex and will not be settled here on this forum at this time.
99% of the lines, sure I can and have given lines and counter lines. But this particular variation is so complex that a book could be written just on this line. It may come up in a vote chess game or some other venue and if it is vote chess will use what I have. But until I can complete the theory pertaining to this line--No use going into this particular line futher, If someone wants to express their views fine .
It would be nice if Ponz were to defend his claim with concrete analysis instead of saying that he's holding back. If this opening meant very much to me, I'd wade in and try to work out what Ponz is hiding. But it just doesn't. And that's the entire reason that both Magnus Carlsen and Hou Yifan played it: nobody studies it in depth.
There are published challenges to Ponz's book, citing errors and lacunae in the text. He's aware of some of these criticisms. Marin offers a comfortable line for Black to play. Gustafsson, in a Chessbase DVD, gives a line that is good enough for equality. Kaufman offers a line that gives Black practical winning chances.
One game mentioned in the reviews which challenges Ponz's book is W.Ottenweller-G.Aalderink, email 2005.
Ponz, do you plan to write a second edition that will deal with these and other criticisms of your book?
Jempty, I say we play! Leave your computer off and see what happens.
It was not an accusation. Not at all. You showed a game against a program. I simply mean play against a person instead. Leave your computer off. You have strong opinions about the Ponziani, I am asking you for a friendly game to see if I can change your mind.
Ok, so what about this line?
Do you disagree with anything that is said below?
If so what, and why?
Almost completely =. Marin points out that to have any hope of successfully using his space advantage white would need to conduct pawn offensive on both wings without simplifying too much.
This is obviously very difficult to do, not to mention that while doing this you would also need to stop black from neutralising the space advantage.
Fear, this is not one of the main lines and better lines are given in Play the Ponziani but in the book this line continues this way...
In the position instead of 7. Qd4 7. Qf3 is played more often and is a better line. However, I would play 7. Nc4.
Also, there is nothing wrong with just playing 7. Nxg6 as pointed out by Mr. Jempty. 7. Nxg6 is the way the line used to be played some years ago.
This variation can be somewhat boring if the wrong 7th move is chosen.
\However in the 4 Bishop endgame which can arise White has pretty fair winning chances and Black has virtually no chance to win.
Smyslovfan, there are two basic "refutations" to the Ponziani recently out.
One is by Kaufman.
One of the "refutations" is already covered in Play the Ponziani--apparently the author of the book with the refutation had not seen Play the Ponziani.
The other "refutation" from Kaufman is harder and already shown here on this forum. I am working on several replies and am satisfied with my new theory so far but it is very complex and I am not ready to use it now unless it comes up in an actual vote chess game against Ponziani Power.
I am checking and rechecking my new theory--already I did find one flaw and had to redo a good part of my theory.
In the meantime the Ponziani is good enough for almost anyone and will continue to be ok despite what some may say about it.
Except for this little bit of new theory I am working on --am quite willing to discuss any line in the Ponziani.