Magnus v The Ponziani

"best move" in many positions is often up for debate and not important. In many positions there are many equivalent moves. Choosing one often depends on what type of position one prefers to play.

Originally posted by Pacifique
[b]I do not think the GM's dispute that 3...d5 is the best theoretical move in that position.

Just because 2130 rated USCF player said so? 😀 I believe you do not think at all.[/b]

What you believe does not change the fact that d...5 is the best theoretical move. And I believe a 2130 USCF rated player would know more than you would about it, too.

The best theoretical move in any position is always open to debate.

You must remember your Tartakower:

Theorectically recommended = dubious.
Theorectically bad = perfectly playable.

My Tartakower cards trumps this 2130 USCF rated player.

The fact that Carlsen won both sides of this opening within a few rounds
tells you that it is not the opening that matters. It who plays the better chess.

But to join in the best 3rd move debate.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
The best theoretical move in any position is always open to debate.

You must remember your Tartakower:

Theorectically recommended = dubious.
Theorectically bad = perfectly playable.

My Tartakower cards trumps this 2130 USCF rated player.

The fact that Carlsen won both sides of this opening within a few rounds
tells you that it is not the op ...[text shortened]... . If 3...f5 is OK in the Lopez 3.Bb5 f5 then it must be OK against 3.c3. End of analysis.}[/pgn]

What you don't realize is that the 2130 USCF rated player got his information from the masters. Also I was providing the best theoretical move along with some other playable moves. Perhaps 3....f5 is playable too, but all I am saying is the accepted wisdom of the masters of opening theory is that 3...d5 is the very best move in that opening and it is indicated sometimes with the ! (exclamation mark).

P.S. That means the best theoretical moves was not played against Magnus Carlsen in that game he won. So it does not prove the Ponziani opeing is a great opening. He probably played it for psychological reasons on both sides.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
The best theoretical move in any position is always open to debate.

You must remember your Tartakower:

Theorectically recommended = dubious.
Theorectically bad = perfectly playable.

My Tartakower cards trumps this 2130 USCF rated player.

The fact that Carlsen won both sides of this opening within a few rounds
tells you that it is not the op ...[text shortened]... . If 3...f5 is OK in the Lopez 3.Bb5 f5 then it must be OK against 3.c3. End of analysis.}[/pgn]

The f pawn push always leads to lively play it seems. 🙂

Originally posted by ChessPraxis
The f pawn push always leads to lively play it seems. 🙂

See. Isn't that a psychological reason?

I had this position earlier, but it looks like I misremembered some old games.



This is from my 3. ... d6 variation.

It seems as though I underestimated 5.Bc4!.


5. ... exd4 looks anti-thematic (gives up center)
5. ... Nf6 runs into 6.Ng5
5. ... Be7 6.dxe5 dxe5 (Nxe5 7.Nxe5 dxe5 8.Qh5) 7.Qb3 is a wicked fork.

Here is one tactical variation:



Black is in bad shape.

After 5.Bc4 Na5 5.Bd3 or 5.Be2 can be met by Nc6, but I admit it looks a little ridiculous to lose time like this.

I think I dabbled with the Bd7 move and may have run into this fork (and forgot all about it). I do remember playing 4. ... Be7 as well, which is sounder. Then you get a Hungarian type ending (about =) or a Steinitz/Philidor postion.

Anyway, I just didn't want anyone to start playing the d6/Bd7 line and run into an unpleasant surprise.

Originally posted by RJHinds
What you believe does not change the fact that d...5 is the best theoretical move. And I believe a 2130 USCF rated player would know more than you would about it, too.

My ELO is higher than 2200, so I have a reason to think that I understand chess better than 2130 USCF player. 😉

Speaking on "he fact that d...5 is the best theoretical move" - I find amazing to see such a claim from player who did admit in his incompetence already. 😀

Speaking on appeal to "masters":

"Nigel Davies in his Play 1.e4 e5! and Glenn Flear in Dangerous Weapons: 1.e4 e5, both recommend 3...Nf6 4.d4 exd4 as their double duty anti-Goring Gambit/ Ponziani line (the variation in question arises from both openings) but with different interpretations."

http://www.jeremysilman.com/shop/pc/Play-the-Ponziani-p3495.htm

Originally posted by Pacifique
My ELO is higher than 2200, so I have a reason to think that I understand chess better than 2130 USCF player. 😉

Speaking on "he fact that d...5 is the best theoretical move" - I find amazing to see such a claim from player who did admit in his incompetence already. 😀

Okay, believe what you want then. 😏

Hi RJ

"He probably played it for psychological reasons on both sides."

How can Magnus (as good as he is) get White to play 3.c3 for psychological
reasons. Is this why he is so good, he is making moves for his opponents?
I think someone should be told.

This was posted by me in 2008 when this very forum was discussing the Ponziani.

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

A Scottish player called Tim Upton used to play it the early 80's.
He took down a couple of GM's with it in the '82 Olympiad.

Never played it myself. There are 4 better moves in the position.
3.Bb5 3.Bc4 3.d4 and 3.Nc3

Also theory does not like it (which is a perfectly GOOD reason to play it).

If you try to refute it you may get into trouble.
(That's where Tim got most of wins from).

Play solid (Nf6 looks correct - d5 can wait till has more bite).

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

Seems I have not changed my tune in the last 5 years.
Here are two Tim Upton games.

T.Upton - A. Rodriguez Cespedes, Malta Olympiad 1982.
(Rodriguez Cespedes is a Cubam GM awarded the title in 1977.)



And 11 years later Tim is still playing it.

(Tim is a fellow Hibs supporter, we played in the same Wandering Dragons team
in the 80's. We rarely talked chess, just football.)

T.Upton - M. Martini, Cattolica Open 1993

(I've no idea who this Martini lad is, but he was shaken and stirred in this game.) 🙂

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Hi RJ

"He probably played it for psychological reasons on both sides."

How can Magnus (as good as he is) get White to play 3.c3 for psychological
reasons. Is this why he is so good, he is making moves for his opponents?
I think someone should be told.

This was posted by me in 2008 when this very forum was discussing the Ponziani.

--------- ...[text shortened]... Qb7 13.Bc5 Ng8 14.Nd2 Kd8 15.Qa3 Bxc5 16.Qxc5 Qb6 17.Qf8+ Kd7 18.Qe8+ Kd6 19.Ne4[/pgn]

I meant. as Black, he played the defensive move 3...Nf6 instead of the theoretical best move 3...d5, for psychological reasons. Obviously, no one can get his opponent to play the Ponziani opening unless he wants to. And as White he played the Ponziani opening for psychological reasons and not because it is the best opening. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
I meant. as Black, he played the defensive move 3...Nf6 instead of the theoretical best move 3...d5, for psychological reasons. Obviously, no one can get his opponent to play the Ponziani opening unless he wants to. And as White he played the Ponziani opening for psychological reasons and not because it is the best opening. 😏

You are incompetent to judge about it, according to your own words.

Originally posted by Pacifique
You are incompetent to judge about it, according to your own words.

Mr. Duffus, I never used the word "incompetent" to describe me. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
Mr. Duffus, I never used the word "incompetent" to describe me. 😏

You did admit that you lack knowledge to jugde with your own brains. It means you are incompetent Mr.Cheating Ron