It is not so hard to beat a GM. My record against current GMs was 3 wins in 3 games. But then I got to play another game vs a GM [I had Black] and I won that game also.
Dreams don't count, Ponz. lol
If only you knew who Ponz really was.
It is not so hard to beat a GM. My record against current GMs was 3 wins in 3 games. But then I got to play another game vs a GM [I had Black] and I won that game also.
Dreams don't count, Ponz. lol
If only you knew who Ponz really was.
He's David Taylor, from Illinois. Just another no-name former Expert. He claims to be a correspondence GM, who once won over 4400 straight correspondence games, but I don't believe him because his daily rating on here is just mediocre (1646) and he lost his last 2 daily games vs a mere 1600 player. I've won my last 6 games in a row and have a 2025 daily rating, but you don't hear me bragging.
It is not so hard to beat a GM. My record against current GMs was 3 wins in 3 games. But then I got to play another game vs a GM [I had Black] and I won that game also.
Dreams don't count, Ponz. lol
If only you knew who Ponz really was.
He's David Taylor, from Illinois. Just another no-name former Expert. He claims to be a correspondence GM, who once won over 4400 straight correspondence games, but I don't believe him because his daily rating on here is just mediocre (1646) and he lost his last 2 daily games vs a mere 1600 player. I've won my last 4 games in a row and have a 2025 daily rating, but you don't hear me bragging.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Taylor_(chess_player)
Quote: "was the seventh U.S. Correspondence Chess Champion"
The daily rating is not my rating. My son played about 8 games and I got stuck with his very low rating. I don't even play that kind of fast chess.
I never claimed to be a grand master but in real life I have played against 4 current grand masters and beat them all.
I do have a ICCF Correspondence rating of over 2500. They last time I played USCF chess was in 1973 and my rformance rating for that year was 2464.
Also I have a ICCF Correspondence rating of over 2500.
And I did win more than 4400 games in a row-- without a loss or draw.
The last time I played USCF was in 1973 and for the whole year [16 games] I had a performance rating of 2464. Of course I know a heck more about chess now.
The game I won on this site vs a grand master is recorded here.
He's David Taylor, from Illinois. Just another no-name former Expert. He claims to be a correspondence GM, who once won over 4400 straight correspondence games, but I don't believe him because his daily rating on here is just mediocre (1646) and he lost his last 2 daily games vs a mere 1600 player. I've won my last 4 games in a row and have a 2025 daily rating, but you don't hear me bragging.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Taylor_(chess_player)
Quote: "was the seventh U.S. Correspondence Chess Champion"
How do we know that he didn't write that Wiki page himself or that he is just pretending to be that David Taylor?
Lots of laughs!!
He's David Taylor, from Illinois. Just another no-name former Expert. He claims to be a correspondence GM, who once won over 4400 straight correspondence games, but I don't believe him because his daily rating on here is just mediocre (1646) and he lost his last 2 daily games vs a mere 1600 player. I've won my last 4 games in a row and have a 2025 daily rating, but you don't hear me bragging.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Taylor_(chess_player)
Quote: "was the seventh U.S. Correspondence Chess Champion"
How do we know that he didn't write that Wiki page himself or that he is just pretending to be that David Taylor?
Well, the list of U.S. correspondence champions is not kept secret. Since you wrote "He's David Taylor, from Illinois" in your own posting, we would naturally assume that you don't doubt his identity.
Besides that, we all have seen plenty of posts from Ponz that clearly show that he is the author of that Ponz book.
It is not so hard to beat a GM. My record against current GMs was 3 wins in 3 games. But then I got to play another game vs a GM [I had Black] and I won that game also.
Dreams don't count, Ponz. lol
If only you knew who Ponz really was.
He's David Taylor, from Illinois. Just another no-name former Expert. He claims to be a correspondence GM, who once won over 4400 straight correspondence games, but I don't believe him because his daily rating on here is just mediocre (1646) and he lost his last 2 daily games vs a mere 1600 player. I've won my last 6 games in a row and have a 2025 daily rating, but you don't hear me bragging.
I have played a lot of VC with Ponz. And believe me, he is no 1600 player.
Not even close.
The daily rating is not my rating. My son played about 8 games and I got stuck with his very low rating. I don't even play that kind of fast chess.
I never claimed to be a grand master but in real life I have played against 4 current grand masters and beat them all.
I do have a ICCF Correspondence rating of over 2500. They last time I played USCF chess was in 1973 and my rformance rating for that year was 2464.
Also I have a ICCF Correspondence rating of over 2500.
And I did win more than 4400 games in a row-- without a loss or draw.
The last time I played USCF was in 1973 and for the whole year [16 games] I had a performance rating of 2464. Of course I know a heck more about chess now.
The game I won on this site vs a grand master is recorded here.
Bragging about your 1970's and 80's accomplishments doesn't impress me. What have you done lately? You are apparently 78 years old, but you're living in the past. I don't hear Karpov bragging about being the World Champion back in the 1980's. Btw, the Ponziani Opening is a relic and was probably proven to be unsound back in the early 1900's. I just invented a new variation in the London System, that is totally sound, but I'm not bragging about it. I also beat a CM in 16 moves, in a daily game a couple of years ago, as black. I also won 60 straight OTB games, back in 2008. Nobody cares. They will just say "what have you done lately?".
The bust to the Ponziani Opening is 3. d5. Stockfish has this as being better for black. This is probably why we haven't seen the Ponziani played at the elite level for several decades.
So very true!
The bust to the Ponziani Opening is 3. d5. Stockfish has this as being better for black. This is probably why we haven't seen the Ponziani played at the elite level for several decades.
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1704802
The bust to the Ponziani Opening is 3. d5. Stockfish has this as being better for black. This is probably why we haven't seen the Ponziani played at the elite level for several decades.
It's on!
You take the black side of that. Ponz the white.
You can show Ponz how it is done!
Biggest Patzer: No one can beat me!
The bust to the Ponziani Opening is 3. d5. Stockfish has this as being better for black. This is probably why we haven't seen the Ponziani played at the elite level for several decades.
It's on!
You take the black side of that. Ponz the white.
You can show Ponz how it is done!
I challenged Ponz to a daily game, a couple of years ago, and he made up some excuse why he couldn't play. Anyway, I'm a Sicilian player, so I haven't really studied that variation past move 4. I'm just saying that it's slightly better for black, according to Stockfish. Probably because there's a pawn on c3 where a knight should be, so after exd5 Qxd5, white can't gain a tempo with Nc3. Therefore, the Ponziani isn't as solid as the Ruy Lopez, Giuoco Piano, Scotch or Three Knights.
The bust to the Ponziani Opening is 3. d5. Stockfish has this as being better for black. This is probably why we haven't seen the Ponziani played at the elite level for several decades.
Well, Magnus has to give the other GM's a handicap, because he's so dominant. lol He was probably bored that day.
The 2nd highest rated player in the world played against the Ponziani about 3 years ago and was losing in the opening. Ponziani is better than it's reputation. I have won against many strong masters with that opening.
I have theory that most people have not seen. By the way the Ponziani is not refuted by 3. ... d5 Just because you read that somewhere--does not mean it is true.
I know the Ponziani inside and out--so much so that I won from a grand master here on chess com in an exhibition where I played several games at once vs the best players I could find. The grand master was allowed to use a chess engine.
I am not saying the Ponziani is the best opening [I think 1. d4 is the best] I am saying I have proved many claims against the Ponziani to be false.
I am almost age 79 now and beyond adding much to theory but I have already done this.,,
The 2nd highest rated player in the world played against the Ponziani about 3 years ago and was losing in the opening. Ponziani is better than it's reputation. I have won against many strong masters with that opening.
I have theory that most people have not seen. By the way the Ponziani is not refuted by 3. ... d5 Just because you read that somewhere--does not mean it is true.
I know the Ponziani inside and out--so much so that I won from a grand master here on chess com in an exhibition where I played several games at once vs the best players I could find. The grand master was allowed to use a chess engine.
I am not saying the Ponziani is the best opening [I think 1. d4 is the best] I am saying I have proved many claims against the Ponziani to be false.
I am almost age 79 now and beyond adding much to theory but I have already done this.,,
I didn't say that 3. d5 refutes it, but black does gain a slight advantage with it, so that means that The Ponziani (3. c3) is not white's best option, after 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6. Just like Alapin's Variation isn't best against the Sicilian, for the same reason (an early d5 by black). The Ponziani and Alapin's are attempts to have your cake and eat it too (e4 being the cake and d4 being the too). Players have been trying to figure out ways to force the "holy grail of chess" (the e4/d4 pawn center) since chess was invented. The Colle System was another failed attempt to force the issue (first you solidify d4 with c3, then you try for e4 later on). However, the Colle, Ponziani and Alapin's all have weaknesses that can be exploited. There's no perfect opening. If there was, chess would be obsolete, as white would win too often.
I can't find it online, but It's mentioned in Murphy's history of chess: the slowest OTB game. Essentially some chess master decided he couldn't win a fair match against his opponent. (Circa 1880's to 1890's)
So he just took hours between moves, hoping his opponent would resign in disgust.
I'm thinking the game was against Paul Morphy, but I can't recollect who the player was that moved so slow.
Needless to say, chess clocks were invented shortly after that.
Most games won in a row without draw or loss by a chess player. [answer is more than 4400]