This is "Magnus drunk" mentality. It shows some part of our brain can be in buzz mode, but it's not used so much for chess. It's like having a conversation with someone while playing with someone else. That's multi-tasking.
I enjoy how you take openings like the Ponziani and Scandinavian, which have traditionally been viewed as "sub-par" and show that they really should be viewed as "unexplored". There's venom in them, and they get you to very playable positions at worst, and against an unprepared player, they have a venomous sting.
Let's be honest though, the Ponziani works here not because it's 'unexplored', it's because the opponent is a CM who doesn't know the theory. I've seen Levy play this live, and when black knows the critical lines (which aren't that hard to memorise, which I'm saying as a 1700) then it's quite straightforward to fully neutralise this opening.
@@i-am-batman8538 I don't actually disagree with you, a player who is well prepared for the Ponzi will reach an equal position. But then, at the top levels, very few, if any, openings can't be neutralised and one ends up with an equal position after best play. Some are harder to prepare for due to the large number of very playable lines, or lead to complicated but equal positions, etc, but if there were any opening that guaranteed either player a clear advantage even after best play, then that is all we would see. But even top players will focus their study and preparation on the more fashionable openings of the day, so there can be some advantage to being well prepared with an out of fashion opening, to play on occasions. Years ago, Kasparov revitalised the Scotch Game, for instance, and would play that as his alternative to the Ruy Lopez with good results. At that time, the Scotch was well out of fashion, so none of the top players tended to play it, so the theory remained as it was as it wasn't being explored over the board. Players were "prepared" against the Scotch, but not prepared for the new ideas Kasparov found because they never looked at it with the eye of finding improvements - they learned it, they didn't explore it. When Kasparov looked at it he explored it with the idea of improving upon existing theory. And sure enough, he found some and the Scotch was revitalized. Eventually theory advanced and things balanced and returned to where it's again equal. All through the exploration that is top level OTB games. I enjoy how Levi will look at less fashionable openings. More straightforward openings, with fewer lines to prepare, are exactly what lower rated players need, so they can get to the middle game safely, and also so they can see the same positions arising and benefit from that repetition and thereby improve their middle game play.
@@JeffPHamm You really didn't need to write a philosophy on how openings work, I'm fully aware of that. The point you fail to completely address is that the Ponziani is not on the same level. It's not 'out of fashion', it's easier to prepare against and neutralise. The lines are simple and considered good for black when used correctly, and relying on an opponent not knowing the theory isn't a good idea - especially when they're titled. Struggling to understand how you think this Kasparov tale is remotely relevant either. We live in the age of engines and computers, everything you've said can't really be applied to the 21st century in any meaningful way. And you didn't get his name right, it's Levy.......
They work on unprepared club players or in blitz games but they're not very serious at high level. I have a friend who's 2250 uscf who still somehow used the Vienna gambit until recently, but even at his level people were like wut. At FM or IM level stuff like that disappears completely
