Ponziani Opening

ponziani.

I don't think its very bad move. Nbd2 is better, but Nxd5 is 2nd best according to rybka opinion

Firebrand played well and outplayed our Expertize.  The variation Expertize chose was not very good and hopefully our guy will study up on the best ways to play after 5. d3  Be6  before he issues another challenge!

Score one  for Firebrand!

I also played a Ponziani game lately, I think I haven't analyzed a game so extensively since my plays with jempty_method. I think it's a fairly high level game. Some comments to the game: http://www.chess.com/echess/game?id=69286584

I think I was prepared well before this game, even bought "Play the Ponziani" book. :P

In GM level play, there might be better openings to claim the advantage, but who from us here is GM ?. There are many moves to come in the game, where we or even masters make mistakes or blunders which eventually make the result. I am sure if i feed your recent game into rybka, it will find spots where white could play better and eventually win the game.

I played this myself the first season i played the club level with very good results, i scored around 5 wins and 1 draw, where the drawn game was clearly better position for me, but since it was complicated and i was newbie, i rather offered draw than to regret later. And from my observations, the higher level chess rarely even gives you chance to play it, because most of people will play whatever else than e5, most often sicilian

I think despite that it was a game with help of computers he became confused as to the actual position at his 6th move which was a lemon.

 Firebrand  won fair and square and played a nice game and even had a small advantge at the very end of the game.

Next time if he challenges you he will play for a win.  He was this time but went astray.  For sure he will try different moves at some point!

Firebrand did what he said he would do and derves kudos til next time. 

Firebrand, what is the point of that type of game?  Did you apply any of your own chess knowledge and skill to the game.  I really don't understand how these games work.  Would the game have looked the same if Rybka had played Houdini?

No.

Centaur is different from computer chess.

The one that just follows the computer's indications will score very poorly in centaur tournaments.

We both deviated from the computer's stupider suggestions. The Ne7- g6 plan was suggested by GM Jan Gustafsson in his second dvd on 1.e4 for Black. There were a lot of only moves in the middle game though.

Ponz, you often say "With best play chess is a draw"  Firebrand has asserted that his moves were the best possible moves in the game.  The fact that the result was a draw logically suggests that white's were also the best; otherwise white would have lost.

Is there an error in my reasoning?

More than one, I am afraid...

1- On a theoretical point of view, there might be multiple "best moves" that lead to the same result (1-0 / 0-1 / 0.5-0.5), but for practical purposes it still changes things.

Imagine that the Sicilian has been analysed as an easy draw (lol) and everyone learns all the lines, but the Ruy Lopez analysed as transposing eventually into a drawish king+rook+pawn vs king+bishop. Would you say that both are of equal value to draw ? Obviously not - you can always try to win the one-exchange-and-more-up endgame instead of settling for an easy draw.

2- The "best moves" FirebrandX claims are not here, on an academic point of view ; there might be improvements. He means that his moves would never be refuted in standard tournaments even at the GM level (as the centaur players are waaaaaay over the head of GMs with the association silicium + brains). So if nothing is refuted at this level, it's good enough at least for OTB play.

3-Maybe chess is not a draw with best play, who knows ?

Irontiger,

My reasoning is based on their statements, not anyones opinions.

S1: With best play chess is a draw

S2: The best moves were played by black.

Fact: The game was a draw.

My question is: based on these statements can it be claimed that white made the best moves?

You see, Ponz believes (or at least has stated many times) that if one side loses, than they did not play the best moves.  I don't know if he is right, but that is irrelevent here.

The answer to my question might be that a player can fail to make the best moves, but not fall so far behind that his position is lost.  That is what i am curious about in Ponz's statements.

In the game of Expertise and Firebrand, Experise started with the opening advantage +0.2, and the game ended with -0.2.  Neither of those are big enough advantages to win, but black had made progress.

The Ponziani is almost never played at high levels for a reason, and that reason is this; If Black knows the theory White gets nothing. Now that doesn't make the Ponziani bad, infact many players are not really prepared to meet it. For the most part, if you are better than the person you're playing against you can win with many things.

I think I heard that ponziani (the person) himself reccomended 3...f5!? against his own opening. Just imagine getting that position in an OTB game!

I think white stands better after 3...f5!?

Actually while Firebrand played a nice game. I disagree that the line with 

5. d3 is playing for a draw. There are certainly improvements for White over the game played.  Right now, I am studying the whole 5. d3 line.

I think next time our Expertise plays that line he will have more theory behind him.

But, for now, for the time being, score one for Firebrand.

Ponz, you seem to have no problem playing 3, 4 or 5 Vote Chess games at a time, maybe more if you are still participating in the Scandanavian and Benko groups.  What is the reason you refuse to play online games (with or without computers) except for the occasional games you post against non-experts played outside of chess.com?

I don't know if Firebrand plays normal (no computer) chess.  You make assertions that can certainly be put to the test.

In my group there were a couple of comments.  None were positive.  I deviated from the main line because it seemed very drawish and I wanted to play for a win.

People here are more interested in how humans navigate computer suggestions.  I don't get it.

I changed the moveI intended for move 16.  After that I was no longer comfortable because the game was not in my control anymore.

I was lost after move 19.

I deviated at move 9.  In the book, Play the Ponziani, the move suggested is 9. Be3 with the comment, "Robbing the f8 bishop of the c5 square"  The fact is black does not play Bc5 in any of the alternative lines.  I concluded the stated reason for plaing 9. Be3 was questionable.  However, delaying the development of the light squared bishop is reasonable.

I planned on playing 16. Bb3 which would have put pressure on f7, but at the last minute I became concerned with 16... Ng4.  But I had a resource that I did not see until I had moved.  At that point all of my analysis was gone.

He is wrong about 7.Qf3.  That move transposes into mainlines often but black has more chances to screw up.

I think C-nack might also be mistaken about me playing Kd1.  That move is sharp, but I wanted to get back to a normal position which would have been impossible if I played Kd1. 

Then the tactics took over and made my analysis complicated.  Leaving pieces en prise always needs lotsof analysis.