Ponziani Opening

Of course I disagree with that statement.  I could agree with, "In my opinion, chess is likely a draw with best play."

There are actually two statements here:

1. There are many things that are true that cannot be proven.
   
   
2. The fact that chess is a draw with best play is one of them.

Statement 1 is assuredly true.

Any statement that purports to classify something as beloning to the set of things in statement 1, however, is a guess at best.

What we can say is that the statement "chess is a draw with best play" can't be proven.  We can't know for certain if it's in the set of true statements that can't be proven, but it's at least in the superset of statements that can't be proven.

So no, I don't agree with statement 2 either.

"so, no, I don't agree with statement 2 either."  This implies you do not agree with statement 1  [which you do agree to]

However the statement that "chess is a draw with best play." is true even though I cannot prove this.

They used to say checkers was a draw with best play on bothsides but it was not proven.  Now it is proven.

The fact that something is proven or not proven has little to do with it's truthfulness.

It is also debateable if chess can be proven a draw or not. There is overwhelming circumstantial evidence that chess is a draw with best play for both sides.  Depends on your definition of "proven"

I'd suggest you read a little more closely.

1. I believe some things cannot be proven.

2. I believe that declarative statements about the truthfulness of any of those things is foolhardy.

3. The definition of proven is not subjective.

Let me reformulate this so you can see how silly this statement is:

1. I believe that some animals are birds.

2. Dogs are among those animals that are birds.

If you disagree with statement #2, then this implies you disagree with statement #1.

I do not agree that the Frazier variation refutes the Ponziani.  A friend and I studied that variation and found some good ideas for White.

Bolan, sorry but White cannot win in chess unless Black makes a bad move.

Even if White plays perfectly he cannot win against someone else also playing perfect chess. [this is my opinion, which also happens to be true]

Firebrand, Ponz wanted me to clear a few things up.

Fact:

You peeked as a B-class player (Ponz knows this)

Your undisputed strength lies in your analysis using strong engines. (Ponz knows this)

Ponz wants to vett his ideas against strong analysis.

Misunderstanding:

When I said you were not ready for the Dream Team, i meant you had other obligations to attend to.

Opinion:

I think it is ridiculous that in an opening forum created by Ponz that he makes statements like, "I have found a way for white to maintain an advantage", and then goes on to ask people to email him privately to find out.  Quite frankly, Loek has already stated the ideas are over his head, therefore he wont know if Ponz' claimed "slight plus for white" is indeed a slight plus.

Ponz I wrote these comments at your request.  From here on I only intend to write about chess and not egos.

Prove it.

At best.  At worst, such statements are insidious.

Kant, you are again putting words in my mouth.

I did not and do not know that Firebrand peeked as a class B player.

From his explanation, he did not peek as a class B player.

Kant, please do not put down what you think I know as very often you are not correct about this.

Also, I do not have to put every idea I have about the Ponziani Opening on this forum. I have already put a ton of new ideas in the Ponziani Power forum.

The Frazier variation is extremely complex--too complex to show on this forum.

People make declaritive statements often.  Almost any player rated above 2200 will tell you that the circumstantial evidence that chess is a draw is overwhelming.

Ask any super grandmaster and they will tell you chess is a draw with best play.

This does not prove 100% chess is a draw with best play--only about 99.6% 

@Ponz111: Will you share those good ideas for white? Is 6. Be3 a good idea?

@Kantifields: I did not have the intention to make a statement about any claims of Ponz111. My motivation came from the amazement that this is a threat about the Ponziani opening. Within this thread comes the bold statement that the opening is refuted. If I hear that claim, then will I drop all other conversations and start analysing. If it is not correct, then will I show why. What is more important in a thread about the Ponziani Opening then a (serious) challenge to the opening itself?

I can not refute the line of Brian Wall. Nor will I believe it immediately, because there are some moves I really question. I can see 6. Be3, but I am not a person to make claims about the validity of opening ideas. So I ask, because I am very curious in the combined knowledge of your chess strength.

There is a correlation that the higher one's chess ability the more likely he will think chess played perfectly will end in a draw.

Chess will end in a draw.

Here is one of the reasons why the Frazier Variation does not refute the Ponziani--White does not have to go into that variation.

Also, as far as I have seen the Frazier Variation ends in a draw--so this is not a refutation of the Ponziani.

Any sound opening will end in a draw with best play.

You can read Ponz.  Firebrand wrote that he retired at 1700+ (a B-class player).  Since I know you read that statement, and I know that you are aware the 1700+ is a B player, then I know that you are aware that Firebrand retired as a B class player.

Look I have no interest in participating in your fanatsies.  But thanks for pointing out that the Frasier variation is too complex for this opening forum.  So share your analysis privately with someone who has stated it is over his head. 

Of course your analysis is not needed here.  When Firebrand gets some time, he can do the engine  thing he does and produce concrete answers that everyone who is interested seems to get.

GM's still want the white pieces.

So the analysis against the Frasier variation is to not play the mainline so your opponent does not have the opportunity to play the Frasier variation at all.

Is that like saying I can take the sting out of the Sicilian by playing 1. d4

The Ponziani Opening, as with other peripheral openings, strength lies in the fact that it is unlikely that an opponent will be fully prepared against it. This may not be the case at GM level but certainly at Club Level if you are a Ponziani player, fully booked up with traps prepared at every turn then you are going to do well as white as long as your mid game and end game are up to scratch. Black will of course be expecting 3 Bb5 or perhaps 3 Bc4 or 3 d4. 

The problem is that if you play 1 e4 there is a lot of opening theory that you need to know so atm I play the KIA. KIA = very little time needed learning theory.

One day when 0.5 of a pawn after move 15 becomes relevant, which may be never, I intend to try to build an opening repertoire with 1 e4, the Ponziani being part of that.

I was immediately attracted to opening theory when I first started playing Chess (Dec 2011) because you can be a GM for perhaps 5 or 6 moves. Now I understand that if you get to the mid game relatively equal then that is all that is required of an opening for 99% of Chess Players.