Ponziani Opening

In that game it appears that White's mistake was 9. Qxe5+. 9. Rg1 appears to be the best move.

Yes David Taylor, but I don't think any blitz player in 5 years , , titled or otherwise, has found 9 Rg1 so it's hard for me to get decent practice. 9 Qxe5+ definiely needs investigation.

This is a crossover for me between elaborate annotations on BrianWallChess@Yahoogroups.com and Chess.com

one month ago

https://denverchess.com/Games/ViewPgn?id=2682           embedded notes

====================================================================================

one week ago

https://denverchess.com/Games/ViewPgn?id=3535           embedded notes

====================================================================================

Just now

====================================================================================

https://denverchess.com/Games/ViewPGN?id=3703           no notes

====================================================================================

https://denverchess.com/Games/ViewPGN?id=3704           embedded notes

====================================================================================

Information about od57(IM) (Last disconnected Tue Oct 01 2013 01:12):

              rating [need] win  loss  draw total   best

Blitz           2536  [8]   545   293    55   893   2626 (20-Jan-2005) 

5-minute        2421  [8]  3760  2903   652  7315   2470 (15-Aug-2009) 

1-minute        1545  [8]    21    30     0    51   1613 (08-Aug-2003) 

3-minute        2091        560   486    59  1105   2305 (03-Jul-2013) 

 1: IM Dorel Oltean

 Name   : Dorel Oltean

 Groups : IMs

======================================================================================

All the Fraser positions are incredibly complex and I was frustrated none of my Fraser 

blitz games were good enough for Joel Johnson's next book. All I am trying to do is get 

a feel for what humans might try.

IM Dorel Oltean has tried 9 Qxe5+ against me every time.

I doubted this could be good for Black four years ago.

Slowly it dawned on me that White's King was slightly worse

than my King. In analysis my King and KR always manage to

right themselves. It could be ... f6 or ... h6  or ... h5 or ... g5

depending on the right circumstances.

Other key point in the Oltean Variation of the Fraser:

9 Qxe5+ abandons the right to win a piece with c6xb7

as in the Minasian and many other variations.

The Minasian game is in Tactics Time 2 twice

by Tim Brennan and Anthea Carson.

9 Qxe5+  puts the Queen on a lousy square where it can be attacked at will

by ... d6, .. f6, ... Re8, ... Ng4, etc.

So yes, it feels inconvenient to lose my castling privileges but White does that on Move 7.

======================================================================================

[Event "ICC 3 0"]

[Site "Internet Chess Club"]

[Date "2013.10.01"]

[Round "1"]

[White "IM Dorel Oltean"]

[Black "BrianWall"]

[Result "0-1"]

[ICCResult "White forfeits on time"]

[WhiteElo "2091"]

[BlackElo "2043"]

[Opening "Ponziani: Fraser defense"]

[ECO "C44"]

[NIC "KP.05"]

[Time "01:06:54"]

[TimeControl "180+0"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. c3 Nf6 4. d4 Nxe4 5. d5 Bc5 6. dxc6 Bxf2+ 7. Ke2 Bb6

8. Qd5 Nf2 9. Qxe5+ Kf8 10. Be3 Nxh1 11. Na3 f6 12. Qe4 bxc6 13. Rd1 d5 14.

Ke1 Kf7 15. Qf4 Re8 16. Nd4 c5 17. Nb3 Qe7 18. Nc2 Bb7 19. Bb5 d4 20. Bxe8+

Rxe8 21. cxd4 cxd4 22. Nbxd4 Bxg2 23. Kd2 Kg8 24. Kc1 Bb7 25. Nf5 Qe4 26.

Qf1 Bxe3+ 27. Ncxe3 g6 28. Nh6+ Kg7 29. Neg4 Qe6 30. Qd3 Be4 31. Qc3 Bf5 32.

Nxf5+ gxf5 {White forfeits on time} 0-1

To SmyslovFan and Kantfield - I have made Chess.com diagrams a couple of times but it still doesn't come automatically. Hopefully I can improve in the future.

My attempt to play the White side of the Ponziani turned out horribly

[Event "ICC 3 0"]

[Site "Internet Chess Club"]

[Date "2013.10.01"]

[Round "1"]

[White "BrianWall"]

[Black "playwaycool"]

[Result "0-1"]

[ICCResult "White resigns"]

[WhiteElo "1998"]

[BlackElo "2107"]

[Opening "Ponziani: Caro variation"]

[ECO "C44"]

[NIC "KP.05"]

[Time "00:58:15"]

[TimeControl "180+0"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. c3 d5 4. Qa4 Bd7 5. exd5 Nd4 6. Qd1 Nxf3+ 7. Qxf3 Nf6

8. Bc4 Bc5 9. O-O e4 10. Qg3 Bd6 11. Qh4 g5 12. Qh6 Ng4 13. Qg7 Bxh2+ 14.

Kh1 Be5 15. Qxh8+ Bxh8 16. d4 Qf6 {White resigns} 0-1

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Information about playwaycool(H) (Last disconnected Tue Oct 01 2013 03:02):

              rating [need] win  loss  draw total   best

Wild            1611  [6]     7     5     1    13                      

Bughouse        1624  [6]     3     1     0     4                      

Bullet          2162  [3]   358   211    40   609   2340 (31-Jan-2010) 

Blitz           2410       3660  2587   450  6697   2725 (13-Sep-2008) 

Standard        2042  [6]   100    40    25   165   2172 (30-Jun-2009) 

5-minute        2212        579   515   119  1213   2449 (21-Apr-2013) 

1-minute        2207       7523  6884   963 15370   2416 (26-May-2012) 

15-minute       1930  [4]    24    13     7    44   2048 (23-Jun-2009) 

3-minute        2121       1662  1527   285  3474   2298 (04-Jan-2013) 

Chess960        2158  [8]     1     0     0     1                      

 1: Greetings!

 2: USCF - 2069 (2116 Quick Rating), FIDE - 2058

 Groups : USA LeChessClub Helpers Team4545League

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://denverchess.com/Games/ViewPGN?id=3710

And there was much rejoicing!

In the above game 9. d3 gives White some advantage.

I was thinking, someone earlier asked if my analysis was computer generated. I've been playing the Fraser Defense for decades just because I like the whole idea of it. However I played it poorly and it was frustrating. As the computer slowly imrpoved so did my play. About 4 years ago I became excited because I thought it might actucally work after all these years. Also I "invented" the Ponziani as an 8 yr old and liked the big center I got against other kids. So I love both sides of the Ponziani and basically with the help of Fritz and Rybka I have been honing it into a sharp blitz weapon online for the last 4 years. I cannot say with 100% certainty it is sound because it depends on thousands of unclear positions, some with a Knight stuck in the corner. "needs practical tests" is an understatement. Well I know the world after me will play millions of games with it. I just happened to live at an exciting time in Chess, the beginning of the computer era. I am running a tournament in Denver Nov 2 and GM Timur Gareev will be giving some kind of exhibition in Denver that weekend. exciting Chess stuff happening in Denver. Denver Open this weekend.

A recent game.  My oponent lost on time, but he definitiely had the advantage at the end.

You played a line I suggested as bad for White. 

When did it become bad?  Can you be a little more specific?  I am trying to play these games without book help to prepare for OTB tournament play.  I am hopeful that the vote games and my previous games that were supported by your opening book have prepared me adequately.  I play in under 2000 sections.

Also, the analysis in the diagram is chess.com computer generated.

I had posted in Ponziani Power some revisions.  In your line

after 7. d4  e4   I suggest 8. Ng1  look at the current games going and finished in the the Ponziani tournament.

The 8. Ng1 line is a new line without much analysis published on it yet.

Firebrand posted a little on this line. There is a lot of analysis after 8. Ng1 which I no longer can post in Ponziani Power.  

However [if you wish] I could make you a guest for Ponziani Analysis Group and you could see a lot of new stuff there.

Oh.  I decided not to play Ng1 because my opponent seemed very familiar with that line (in fact he played it against me in our second unfinished game).  Since my opponent definitely has lots of computer analysis in that line, i decided to avoid it.   i assumed the computer analysis would be fair for him to use since he had it from other games.

The problem with staying away from Ng1 is that possibly it is the "only" move that may work in that position.  Ng1 is rare [I invented it] so I am surprised someone already has extensive analysis on it.

Why would you be surprised.  There is a Ponziani computer tournament going on with that line being vetted (by my opponent).

Your discovery is alreasdy out there in some circles.

Earsley and I worked on that line.   I know the discovery is out as Firebrand put it out with a little analysis.

My point is---if a line is bad you should not play it--- better to play a line that is being investigated.

I remember in vote chess many games back Ponziani Power lost a game when they/we played 7. 0-0 ?! as I was not up on current analysis and it turned out the other team had two players using a chess engine against us and the super said [after we lost] that he should have forfeited that game.]                           

I did not play 7. 0-0?  I know that line is bad.  Perhaps you are mixing up lines.

Kant I know you played 7. d4 it was your follow up I mentioned was probably not correct.

Rather than play 7. d4  e4  8. c4 [which is probably bad] you should play

7. d4  e4  8. Ng1    and if  you do not want to play 7. d4  e4 8. Ng1 [because you do not know the line] then my suggestion is to play

3. c3  d5  4. Qa4  f6  5. d3.  I noticed Ponziani Power has a vote chess game going with that line and they are about to win.

[these are only suggestions]