Ponziani Opening

Way, way, way higher than just 99%.

99.9%?

99.6% I think.

47.3% of all chess.commies think that half the other chess.commies don't know half as much as they think they do.

There is also correlation that the higher one`s chess ability, the more likely he will not take serious your claims about Ponziani. :)

Plus or minus half.

I guess it depends on the definition of a 'Chess Player' 

The point being, of course, that the Ponziani is a sound opening. I think top players avoid it because there are so lines which haven't been properly analysed. From what I have seen, of big matches, as soon as GMs go 'out of theory' they offer a draw.

Kant, when I asked you to tell FirebrandX that I do not agree with many of your statements putting down the chess ability of others--I did not ask you to insult him again.  I totally disagree with your assertion that he peaked at Class B level.  

When someone goes from over the board chess to correspondence chess he is still improving. As a former correspondence chess player I know that to win the USA Championship and I mean even with chess engines [as they use now] requires over the board ability and talent of at least USCF master rating of 2200.  

While, I dislike what he has done recently--his correspondence chess ability is very high and his over-the board chess is also at least master.

Prove it.

A class player is going to improve their OTB ability more than 2 full classes by switching to CC chess and letting strong engines do the " heavy lifting " for them ?!  LOL  Sorry , but this is ridiculous . 

You`re wrong. Many modern top players tend to play lines which are not so well analysed, due to amount of theory in most popular lines. Carlsen and Naka are the best well known examples. But even they have used Ponziani only as surprise weapon, which means that prepared Black player should be able to draw easily.

I heard that shot-putters also train for the Olympics with the assistance of cannons.

Congrats NM Reb for being post #1000. My goal is to be post #10000. #2000 just doesn't do it for me...

kant, I will ask you one more time not to put down what you think I know as you have a long record of being wrong or totally wrong about this and you make assumptions that are not warranted.   

Kant, I never said that it is best to avoid the frazier variation.  In fact, I would play into it.  

This used to be the case, but a top-notch engine with good hardware is easily the strength of even the best GM's at correspondence controls now.  Times change, and centaurs with nothing but guys recording moves compete and compete well with great chess players -- even those using engines themselves -- these days.  A human's capacity for "deep positional understanding" used to be a trump.  It's not any more. It's ugly, but it's the direction of the universe.  Alas.

Reb, First of all you assume FirebrandX ended his over the board chess career at 1700 strength which is very probably not true. [I think you assume this]  I am guessing his playing strength was about 1850.  

A player who switches to correspondence chess can improve his knowledge by 350 points IF he is good enough to win the USA Championship.  There is more to correspondence chess using chess engines than you may think.  While studying chess positions even with the help of chess engines--one learns a lot.

I am not talking about the average correspondence chess player--I refer only to the one who increases his ability enough to win the USA Championship.

The average correspondence chess player will only increase his over the board chess ability a small amount.

If centaur chess was nothing but guys using chess engines than the result would be all draws.  But, in any event, I am NOT talking about the average centaur--I refer only to the one who is good enough to win the USA Championship.  There are reasons he stands above the field.

This is proof, not what your gut tells you:

12397699: JOHN BALLOW

Tournament directors should use the appropriate published rating unless otherwise announced in all pre-tournament publicity. For events that begin prior to August 1st, the July supplement should be used. The ratings shown on this page are official published ratings, which the USCF issues twelve times a year. As of October 1, 2012, official ratings lists are generated on the 3rd Friday of each month and become official on the 1st day of the next month. for unofficial rating information from recently rated events, see the 'Tnmt Hst' tab.   Current Published Rating (July Supplement) Regular Rating 1564   2012-07 (Current floor is 1500)   Quick Rating (Unrated)     Blitz Rating (Unrated)     Highest USCF Norms-Based Title Earned (in events since 1991) 3rd Category   Show Ratings History Graphs   Show Game Statistics Correspondence Rating 2331 State CA Expiration Dt. 2013-04-30   Voting Member Status Not Eligible to Register as a Voting Member Last Change Dt. 2012-04-03