Forums

Ponziani Opening

Sort:
ponz111
ponz111
Jun 28, 2013
0
#761

Close but no cigar!

SocialPanda
SocialPanda
Show your flair!
Jun 28, 2013
0
#762
Pacifique wrote:
socialista wrote:
Pacifique wrote:

Poor annotations, ignoring 41...c6?? which gives up f-pawn for nothing. It also lack explanations why  Black 32. and 40. moves were bad, without offering reasonable alternatives.

Speaking on opening - Black had interesting alternative 16...Qh4 (instead of 16...Rfe8) with idea to prevent castling and push pawn on e3. Black would have very powerful initiative for 2 pawns and I would not like to defend such a position for White.

 

Pacifique line 16... Qh4, analyzed with houdini 2. The final position evaluated as a draw.

1) Too long line to be forced.

2) If it`s draw, it means that knowledgeable Black player can draw easily.

Of course is not a forced line, but I tried to get at least 28 depth every 2 or 3 moves, this is just the top choices of houdini. Just to show a reasonable follow up.

Pacifique
NM Pacifique
Show your flair!
Jun 29, 2013
0
#763
socialista wrote:
Pacifique wrote:
socialista wrote:
Pacifique wrote:

Poor annotations, ignoring 41...c6?? which gives up f-pawn for nothing. It also lack explanations why  Black 32. and 40. moves were bad, without offering reasonable alternatives.

Speaking on opening - Black had interesting alternative 16...Qh4 (instead of 16...Rfe8) with idea to prevent castling and push pawn on e3. Black would have very powerful initiative for 2 pawns and I would not like to defend such a position for White.

 

Pacifique line 16... Qh4, analyzed with houdini 2. The final position evaluated as a draw.

1) Too long line to be forced.

2) If it`s draw, it means that knowledgeable Black player can draw easily.

Of course is not a forced line, but I tried to get at least 28 depth every 2 or 3 moves, this is just the top choices of houdini. Just to show a reasonable follow up.

LOL. Even so called advanced chess players usually are more than followers of first engine choices.

SocialPanda
SocialPanda
Show your flair!
Jun 29, 2013
0
#764
Pacifique wrote:
socialista wrote:
Pacifique wrote:
socialista wrote:
Pacifique wrote:

Poor annotations, ignoring 41...c6?? which gives up f-pawn for nothing. It also lack explanations why  Black 32. and 40. moves were bad, without offering reasonable alternatives.

Speaking on opening - Black had interesting alternative 16...Qh4 (instead of 16...Rfe8) with idea to prevent castling and push pawn on e3. Black would have very powerful initiative for 2 pawns and I would not like to defend such a position for White.

 

Pacifique line 16... Qh4, analyzed with houdini 2. The final position evaluated as a draw.

1) Too long line to be forced.

2) If it`s draw, it means that knowledgeable Black player can draw easily.

Of course is not a forced line, but I tried to get at least 28 depth every 2 or 3 moves, this is just the top choices of houdini. Just to show a reasonable follow up.

LOL. Even so called advanced chess players usually are more than followers of first engine choices.

so what?

I just put the top choices of houdini in this line and that´s all. 

Pacifique
NM Pacifique
Show your flair!
Jun 29, 2013
0
#765
socialista wrote:
Pacifique wrote:
socialista wrote:
Pacifique wrote:
socialista wrote:
Pacifique wrote:

Poor annotations, ignoring 41...c6?? which gives up f-pawn for nothing. It also lack explanations why  Black 32. and 40. moves were bad, without offering reasonable alternatives.

Speaking on opening - Black had interesting alternative 16...Qh4 (instead of 16...Rfe8) with idea to prevent castling and push pawn on e3. Black would have very powerful initiative for 2 pawns and I would not like to defend such a position for White.

 

Pacifique line 16... Qh4, analyzed with houdini 2. The final position evaluated as a draw.

1) Too long line to be forced.

2) If it`s draw, it means that knowledgeable Black player can draw easily.

Of course is not a forced line, but I tried to get at least 28 depth every 2 or 3 moves, this is just the top choices of houdini. Just to show a reasonable follow up.

LOL. Even so called advanced chess players usually are more than followers of first engine choices.

so what?

I just put the top choices of houdini in this line and that´s all. 

Do it if you want. Only dont expect others to take serious  your "analysis".

SocialPanda
SocialPanda
Show your flair!
Jun 29, 2013
0
#766
Pacifique wrote:
socialista wrote:
Pacifique wrote:
socialista wrote:
Pacifique wrote:
socialista wrote:
Pacifique wrote:

Poor annotations, ignoring 41...c6?? which gives up f-pawn for nothing. It also lack explanations why  Black 32. and 40. moves were bad, without offering reasonable alternatives.

Speaking on opening - Black had interesting alternative 16...Qh4 (instead of 16...Rfe8) with idea to prevent castling and push pawn on e3. Black would have very powerful initiative for 2 pawns and I would not like to defend such a position for White.

 

Pacifique line 16... Qh4, analyzed with houdini 2. The final position evaluated as a draw.

1) Too long line to be forced.

2) If it`s draw, it means that knowledgeable Black player can draw easily.

Of course is not a forced line, but I tried to get at least 28 depth every 2 or 3 moves, this is just the top choices of houdini. Just to show a reasonable follow up.

LOL. Even so called advanced chess players usually are more than followers of first engine choices.

so what?

I just put the top choices of houdini in this line and that´s all. 

Do it if you want. Only dont expect others to take serious  your "analysis".

Do it? I already did it when I post it.

It´s not my analysis, is the top choices of Houdini 2 at 28 depth, every 3 or 4 moves.

I´m not expecting anything, I never said anything like that. (Like I never said that this was a forced line, all was in your mind).

ponz111
ponz111
Jun 29, 2013
0
#767

There is nothing wrong with giving analysis of a game using a chess engine.

In fact it can be enlightening.

If you do not like the analysis or part of the analysis then your complaint [in this case] is with the chess engine .                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         

Bill_C
Bill_C
Jun 29, 2013
0
#768

David:

Thanks for the ideas relating to the Ponziani and giving a refreshing perspective on the opening as well.

ponz111
ponz111
Jun 29, 2013
0
#769

You are very welcome!

Pacifique
NM Pacifique
Show your flair!
Jun 29, 2013
0
#770
ponz111 wrote:

There is nothing wrong with giving analysis of a game using a chess engine.

In fact it can be enlightening.

If you do not like the analysis or part of the analysis then your complaint [in this case] is with the chess engine .                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         

I`m not surprised by your inability to understand that I dont have problems with engines - I have problems with tools, unable to use them.

ponz111
ponz111
Jun 29, 2013
0
#771

So White players do not know new theory.

 

You could also give  1. e4  e5  2. Nf3  Nc6  3. c3  d5  4. Bb5? for White with probably even worse results.

 

I am not naive about ICCF correspondence,

shepi13
NM shepi13
Show your flair!
Jun 29, 2013
0
#772

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. c3 d5 4. Qa4 f6 5. Bb5 is the mainline, is it not?

Do you think white has any improvements? Black is scoring great, and 0 wins in the most critical line in correspondance is depressing.

ponz111
ponz111
Jun 29, 2013
0
#773

5. d3 is now the main line. This has  to be played correctly.

They are playing the line with 5. Bb5 incorrectly.

The verdict is still out on the 5. Bb5 line but I know they are not playing it correctly. They will get zero wins and some losses if they do not play that line correctly.

shepi13
NM shepi13
Show your flair!
Jun 29, 2013
0
#774

How do you play it correctly?



ponz111
ponz111
Jun 29, 2013
0
#775

7. 0-0? is a mistake as I stated months ago in the forums of Ponziani Power.

shepi13
NM shepi13
Show your flair!
Jun 29, 2013
0
#776

What else??

After 7. d4 e4 black is still better.

kantifields
kantifields
Show your flair!
Jun 29, 2013
0
#777

Shepi, we can show you some in the Ponziani Power forums.

ponz111
ponz111
Jun 29, 2013
0
#778

I made a personal message to firebrand about this. Right now I cannot give away secrets.

Players who look at ICCF results and who are saying that such and such is a bad line because of ICCF resuls are missing something.  They are missing that someone, somewhere has better theory than is curretly being used.

To give an example of this. When I played in the 7th USCCC Finals there was a line considered not so good  for Black.  I was able to play the line as Black in 4 games in the Finals and won all 4 games. [I had discovered new theory]

cheesfreak
cheesfreak
Jun 29, 2013
0
#779

awesomeWink

ponz111
ponz111
Jun 29, 2013
0
#780

I wish I had such a chess engine but in any event I made you a personal offer.