Ponziani discussion without spam

I created this thread for those, who are able to discuss Ponziani without spam of ponz111 and some sockpuppets, registered here just to troll praising him and Ponziani.

So people who truly believes that Ponziani gives White an advatage may show how  White can reach advantage in the following lines:

3...d5 4.Qa4:

1) 4...f6. Analysis in previous thread showed that after 5.Bb5 Ne7 Black can fight for advantage. On the other side  5.d3 leads to obviously equal position.

2) 4...Nf6 5.Nxe5 Bd6!? sharp gambit in which White have to play carefully.

3) 4...Bd7 5.exd5 Nd4 6.Qd1 Nxf3+ 7.Qxf3 Nf6 8.Bc4 e4 9. Qe2 Bd6. Black has obvious compensation for pawn. White should play carefully fot not get into trouble.

3...Nf6 4.d4 (4.d3 is obvious equality):

1) 4...Nxe4 5.d5 Bc5!? (even ponz111 had to admit that this sacrifice leads to at least eayal game for Black);

2) 4...Nxe4 5.d5 Ne7 6. Nxe5 Ng6 7. Qf3 (d4) Qe7 8. Qxe4 Qxe5

3) 4...exd4 5.e5 Nd5 (played by Carlsen recently).

If someone can point out more lines, giving at least equal  play for Black or lines which demonstrates advantage for White - you`re welcome. ponz111 was unable  to do it.

Yeah, I saw that the "Ponziani Pros and Cons" thread had a bunch of new comments, but the entire thread had been deleted. 

As I said in that thread, the Ponziani is a fun opening to play occasionally. It doesn't give white an advantage, as even Ponz has acknowledged. But it does give White the chance to play some interesting lines including some endgames that may give white some concrete chances to play for a win. Having chances to play for a win is not the same as having an advantage. 

Having said that, the Ponz should not be a surprise opening for anyone here because there are so many ponz followers. So, it becomes less attractive to play it on chess.com. It is still a rare bird in grandmaster chess, which is why Nakamura and Carlsen both played it recently. 

The theoretical assessment of the Ponziani hasn't really changed much since the days of Frank Marshall!

FYI, that thread "Ponziani Pros and Cons" has been removed and the OP been muzzled for the time being.

Weird, I just got a notification that a new comment has been added to that topic, which has been deleted.

I would not say there are too many Ponz followers. But they are very active in creating pro-Ponziani spam.

Here's what I posted on page 1 of the "other" thread (the one with 1500+ posts) two years ago. It might serve as the starting point for some observations:

The main lines has probably changed a little bit.

True, Viktor. But not as much as you may think. the Fraser defense, for example, predates Marshall!

Practice shows that after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.c3 Nf6 4.d4 exd5 5.e5 Nd5 (like Carlsen played) Black position is ok. It`s actually one of the variations I`ve mentioned in the first post in this thread.

Here we go again. Ponz keeps repeating posting Ponziani power vote chess (which means group of (mostly) week players vs other group of weak players) games, which already was analysed in the same thread before. Here is the game posted with his annotations:

My comment was:

Also I should add that 40...Qc3+  was not the best move, according to Houdini who suggests 40...Qb1  or 40...Qc2 and Black`s  position is far from being bad.

So we can conclude that ponz111 has not changed its tactic - repeating the same arguments again and again.

Ponz111 still continues his Ponziani spam without being able to address lines posted in the first post of this thread. Not surprised.

And please dont get me wrong - I think Ponziani is perfectly playable as surprise weapon and even if surprise effect does not work, white should have no problems to reach equal game.

The main reason why I will not gonna play Ponziani myself  - White has to learn a lot of more theory than Black should do, to reach equal (or better - if Blacks plays not the best lines) position.  All Black need to do - learning 1-2 lines from the ones mentioned above, depending on what Black wants to achieve (equality vs fight for opening advantage).

Seriously? You block him from your thread then complain he hasn't responded to your lines? (Even though he did reply to some).

Stop baiting.

hah don't forget ponz111 has blocked Pacifique too.

Nobody denies him to post his analysis in his Ponziani threads (where I can`t post because he blocked me). Its no problem for me to re-post his analysis here (like I did already).

If I`ll unblock him he will ruin this thread with his spam - posting non-relevant games, repeating the same busted arguments again and again etc.

eww.

Also it`s not clear how White can get any advantage after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.c3 Nge7.

Ponz111 claims that Black lacks compensation, but its his wishful thinking as usually - it`s not the first position, good for Black which he claims to be better for White. :)

For example - Black gets back pawn with excellent position after natural 10.d4?! Bf6! 11.Re1 (e4, e2) Nxc3 12.bxc3 Bxc4. Exchange sac with 11.Bxd5 Bxe5 12.Bxb7 Rb8 seems to give good play for Black due to more active pieces and lead in development.

Ponz111 is still repeating his refuted argument about Ponziani as "one of the top 10 openings", based on some mysterious game statistics. Still pretending not to understand that using statistics without taking into account opponents strength is laughable.

And it`s already established that prepared Black player has a pleasant choice between reaching obvious equality and fighting for opening advantage in Ponziani. Claiming equal (or eve worse) positions as "better for White" will not help.

His basic argument is: chess is a draw and since it's a draw and the Ponziani is a draw, the Ponziani is as good as any other opening "for 99% of all chess players".

Openings like 1.a3 1.e3 1.c3 etc. are draw too, which means that they are good as any other opening "for 99% of all chess players" :)

So Ponziani,  Ruy Lopez and 1.a3 are equally good openings? :)