Dang, first time playing the Ponziani and you get the absolute mainline! I think I had one game similar and it went: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.c3 d5 4.Qa4 Bd7 5.exd5 Nd4 6.Qd1 Nxf3 7.Qxf3 Nf6 8.Bc4 e4 9.Qe2 Bd6 10.d4 ... Don't give up on the Ponziani John, you have 100% win rate with it. ;)
Even if he used an engine, I still don't understand how could he lose this one on time. He had over 5 minutes over John's 24 seconds, and all of that without increment. That is pretty insane.
"Play the Ponziani" was actually written by Dave (not Tim) Taylor and Keith Hayward. Dave Taylor is a former U.S. correspondence chess champion who, coincidentally, also advocates your favorite Scandinavian Defence.
I was completely sure you were going to lose with that 11 seconds, but then lo and behold - your opponent loses on time! Hahahahaha. If that's a cheater (which is quite the case) he's very very stupid. But on move 16... any engine would show Qe6. Instead he took Qxf3 (maybe that way he tries to avoid being caught, lol). Btw, I used to think ICC is the best site to play due to lack of cheaters. But I can see you face them from time to time :D Thanks for the video!
NeverInterpreter Thanks, DVRazor! His play was very engine-like, but 16...Qxf3 vs. 16...Qe6 was an anomaly, yes. And you are correct: unfortunately I've faced a ton of cheaters in Standard on ICC. My bullet and blitz experience has been largely cheater-free, though (or so I think).
Strange game I thought you was done for looks like you didn't need 30 seconds you could have done it in 5 haha I wouldn't be to surprised if he really was a computer but all in all great game John I can't wait to see tomorrow's game:)
While I watched this Video it was clear to me that you will lose on time but your opponent was either completely blind or a cheater :). It is really funny to see someone win on time with just 11 seconds against almost 4 minutes :). But it was a nice game.
Syromer B Thanks :) By the way, I watched your Carlsen - Topalov video! I wanted to show a student of mine the moment where the arbiter informed Magnus that he had lost on time, and yours was the first RUclips search result that popped up.
Oh. thats great :). It`s a bit like a plessure that you watched my Video :). It is also great that my Video was the first one of the search result:). Thanks for the information
Maybe h5 because he thought that he should start a king side attack, because his king is castle queenside. So somekind of auto pilot plan, but in this case you havent castled yet and you castled queenside later. Could you put the PGN notation for every Standard Game into the youtube description of the video? This would make my life much easier : ), because i dont have access to ICC nor its database.
***** I've thought about it, but I've decided against inserting the PGN in the description because it makes it waaaayyyy too easy for OTB opponents to prepare against me :) If/when I stop playing tournaments seriously I'll do it, however.
How are cheaters actually caught playing on the ICC? Having a ridiculously outstanding record? Their games parallel engines? They have history hitting the lag switch which forces the opponents' clocks to continue to tick even after they've moved?
HeathenThrone I suspect it's a combination of all those factors, but correlation with the engine is the biggest indicator of all. It's impossible for humans to consistently replicate engines lines.
John Bartholomew Would you, or does the competitive chess playing community, consider the use of stimulated drugs, such as Adderall, Ritalin, Vyvanse, etc, as cheating? Because, for me, I have experienced these so called "mind enhancers" in the past (while player causal chess, never competitively) and felt as though I had a bit of an unfair advantage over my opposition.
HeathenThrone There are a lot of players who use stimulants like those, but it's not really considered cheating. FIDE was (still is?) drug testing players in elite events and looking for these types of drugs. They were also considering banning caffeine, hilariously enough.
Too bad you run into a cheater this time, but it's great you manage to hold your position nevertheless ! Maybe he was running an old engine, which could explain some strange choices. Definitely NOT human play though.
John Bartholomew I think this was either Junior or an older version of Fritz. Something like Fritz 11 probably. I suspect that because both of these engines are well known for being very material hungry, and that could explain moves like 16... Qxf3 since it is a forcing sequence and the computer saw that in a depth of 20 moves or so it is going to win 2 pawns with that. And another thing is that if he wants to avoid suspicion he can always play "lesser" moves that keep an advantage but are not necessarily so crushing. Clearly some of his manouvers were very artificial, ideas like h5, I don't think a human player would ever consider, and the time trouble at the end is also super suspicious. Good game nontheless.
Who are "they"? There is an opponent and it has a name. This stupid use of "they" when referring to the other side in chess is really annoying. Or is White also "we" here? Couldn't hear that through the commentary though. And please, don't give me any of that rubbish about "they" being used as a singular according to modern American gender-neutral grammar, as if not American grammar in itself were a contradiction in terms.
You just contradicted yourself completely by using the pronoun "it" talking about a person (an opponent). Mr Lars Butthurt! Also, what is "as if not American grammar in itself were a contradiction in terms" supposed to mean? It's not even grammatical Larsie Fartsie lol
I love the Ponzi. Thanks for playing, I haver been waiting till video 145 for this opening!
Dang, first time playing the Ponziani and you get the absolute mainline!
I think I had one game similar and it went:
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.c3 d5 4.Qa4 Bd7 5.exd5 Nd4 6.Qd1 Nxf3 7.Qxf3 Nf6 8.Bc4 e4 9.Qe2 Bd6 10.d4 ...
Don't give up on the Ponziani John, you have 100% win rate with it. ;)
Justin Ferriman Definitely should have played 9.Bc4!.
Finaly Ponziani, thanks John.
Even if he used an engine, I still don't understand how could he lose this one on time. He had over 5 minutes over John's 24 seconds, and all of that without increment. That is pretty insane.
"Play the Ponziani" was actually written by Dave (not Tim) Taylor and Keith Hayward. Dave Taylor is a former U.S. correspondence chess champion who, coincidentally, also advocates your favorite Scandinavian Defence.
MithrilJack Correct - thanks for pointing that out! Here's the book: www.amazon.com/Play-Ponziani-Everyman-Chess-Taylor/dp/1857446208
I was completely sure you were going to lose with that 11 seconds, but then lo and behold - your opponent loses on time! Hahahahaha. If that's a cheater (which is quite the case) he's very very stupid. But on move 16... any engine would show Qe6. Instead he took Qxf3 (maybe that way he tries to avoid being caught, lol).
Btw, I used to think ICC is the best site to play due to lack of cheaters. But I can see you face them from time to time :D
Thanks for the video!
NeverInterpreter Thanks, DVRazor! His play was very engine-like, but 16...Qxf3 vs. 16...Qe6 was an anomaly, yes. And you are correct: unfortunately I've faced a ton of cheaters in Standard on ICC. My bullet and blitz experience has been largely cheater-free, though (or so I think).
The problem with putting your pawn on c3 is that your knight is not allowed to capture it.
***** Succinctly put!
Strange game I thought you was done for looks like you didn't need 30 seconds you could have done it in 5 haha I wouldn't be to surprised if he really was a computer but all in all great game John I can't wait to see tomorrow's game:)
While I watched this Video it was clear to me that you will lose on time but your opponent was either completely blind or a cheater :). It is really funny to see someone win on time with just 11 seconds against almost 4 minutes :). But it was a nice game.
Syromer B Thanks :) By the way, I watched your Carlsen - Topalov video! I wanted to show a student of mine the moment where the arbiter informed Magnus that he had lost on time, and yours was the first RUclips search result that popped up.
Oh. thats great :). It`s a bit like a plessure that you watched my Video :). It is also great that my Video was the first one of the search result:). Thanks for the information
Maybe h5 because he thought that he should start a king side attack, because his king is castle queenside. So somekind of auto pilot plan, but in this case you havent castled yet and you castled queenside later. Could you put the PGN notation for every Standard Game into the youtube description of the video? This would make my life much easier : ), because i dont have access to ICC nor its database.
***** I've thought about it, but I've decided against inserting the PGN in the description because it makes it waaaayyyy too easy for OTB opponents to prepare against me :) If/when I stop playing tournaments seriously I'll do it, however.
Also possible that he just has slow internet. Maybe the lag is why he didn't speed up.
Jacob Tarallo It's possible, but I doubt it. There was never any sense of urgency in his play.
How are cheaters actually caught playing on the ICC? Having a ridiculously outstanding record? Their games parallel engines? They have history hitting the lag switch which forces the opponents' clocks to continue to tick even after they've moved?
HeathenThrone I suspect it's a combination of all those factors, but correlation with the engine is the biggest indicator of all. It's impossible for humans to consistently replicate engines lines.
John Bartholomew Would you, or does the competitive chess playing community, consider the use of stimulated drugs, such as Adderall, Ritalin, Vyvanse, etc, as cheating? Because, for me, I have experienced these so called "mind enhancers" in the past (while player causal chess, never competitively) and felt as though I had a bit of an unfair advantage over my opposition.
HeathenThrone There are a lot of players who use stimulants like those, but it's not really considered cheating. FIDE was (still is?) drug testing players in elite events and looking for these types of drugs. They were also considering banning caffeine, hilariously enough.
How on earth did you win that when he had a minute and you had 9 seconds and you end with 6.6 haha poor guy
Too bad you run into a cheater this time, but it's great you manage to hold your position nevertheless ! Maybe he was running an old engine, which could explain some strange choices. Definitely NOT human play though.
hicetnunc1972 Agreed! My opponent's smacks of a slightly older engine.
John Bartholomew I think this was either Junior or an older version of Fritz. Something like Fritz 11 probably. I suspect that because both of these engines are well known for being very material hungry, and that could explain moves like 16... Qxf3 since it is a forcing sequence and the computer saw that in a depth of 20 moves or so it is going to win 2 pawns with that. And another thing is that if he wants to avoid suspicion he can always play "lesser" moves that keep an advantage but are not necessarily so crushing. Clearly some of his manouvers were very artificial, ideas like h5, I don't think a human player would ever consider, and the time trouble at the end is also super suspicious. Good game nontheless.
hicetnunc1972 unfortunately, the guy is still there... I wonder what ICC is doing
フィッシャー00769 Excellent analysis. I also had the impression that I was facing a somewhat older engine.
He was clearly unexperienced in blitz. He never went into flagging mode. He kept trying to make good moves and couldnt break through...
Who are "they"? There is an opponent and it has a name. This stupid use of "they" when referring to the other side in chess is really annoying. Or is White also "we" here? Couldn't hear that through the commentary though. And please, don't give me any of that rubbish about "they" being used as a singular according to modern American gender-neutral grammar, as if not American grammar in itself were a contradiction in terms.
Lars Holger Holm jeez
You just contradicted yourself completely by using the pronoun "it" talking about a person (an opponent). Mr Lars Butthurt! Also, what is "as if not American grammar in itself were a contradiction in terms" supposed to mean? It's not even grammatical Larsie Fartsie lol