Ponziani Opening

One reason it is better to have the pawn on c3 rather than c2 is with

the pawn on c3 there are lines where White can play Qb3 effectively.

Also the pawn on c3 gives some support to the knight on d4. Just to give one example [taken at random]

I forgot to mention that having the pawn on c3 supporting the knight makes it a little easier for White to do the standard attack of f4  f5  f6 etc. Of course their are pros and cons about the extra move but I think the pros outweigh the cons. 

"The only real reason that anyone would bother plaing the Ponziani, is hoping that black will play d5 after which sharp play ensues (although black is the one playing for the advantage) There is no point in White's third move unless Black plays badly." Frank Marshall  1904

This is part of the garbage written by some gm's regarding the Ponziani. His statement, in itself, is not very consistent.  Why would a player hope for a d5 response if he would then be playing not to lose?

The truth is that in 1904 there was very little theory about the Ponziani and thus Frank Marshall had no clue as to how good or bad is/was the Ponziani.

I have seen other high masters point to a certain possible position in the Ponziani and claim the position is somehow typical of this opening and then to state the position is boring with virtually no chances for anything other than a draw for both sides.  However, this is NOT true. Even the position they give--there are very clear winning chances for White, assuming White knows what he is doing.

Here is the line they speak of:

even th

Repeating the same crap & claiming equal positions "better" does not make Ponziani better.

I did not say the Ponziani was "better" then any other sound opening.

I am saying it is a viable opening and underestimated by many.

I am also saying it is quite playable up to the 2500 level.

And the position above cited by many as a "dead draw"  is a position where White has definite winning chances. 

ponz, I've been looking into the ponziani some and cannot find an advantage in the following line. Any advice?

Hi, shepi13.  In answer to your question--I have been studying the various lines after 4. Qa4  f6  and now do not advise anyone to play 7. 0-0.  Instead play  7. d4  and after that there are many possiblities for both sides and I am furiously studying many continuations... The book, I co authored with Keith Hayward will have a lot of revisions [if it is ever printed again]  in the chapter [very long chapter]

dealing with the 3. c3  d5 4. Qa4  f6 variation.

Very useful advice. :D

Hi pfren, You are citing one of the refutations to the Ponziani in recent books. In answer to your question: "No, that position and that line does not appeal to me".

But please know when I discovered that 7. 0-0 was very probably a bad line for White and when I noticed other published refutations of the Ponziani starting with 3. c3  d5  4. Qa4  f6  5.Bb5  Nge7 6. exd5  Qxd5

7. d4  --I spent some long hours trying to improve various Ponziani lines after 4. ...f6. 

I cannot say for 100% certainty that my endeavors were successful but

at this point--I think I have answers to the line you gave and also another "refutation".  As someone who tries to be objective I could say the fate of the Ponziani may hang on my new ideas which, so far,

I have given to only one other person.  [in case my health problems become worse--I have a ton of new lines for the Ponziani]

There is a very large chapter on 4. ... f6 in my coauthored  book--half of it will have to be undone--the half having to do with 7. 0-0 . [by the way on the vote chess game-I had a "senior moment" and lead my team astray]

The 1/2 chapter with 7. d4 will need to be revisted and changed per my very recent studies.

If there is a line which refutes the Ponziani, of course, I will be unhappy but chess is chess and very hard. As of today, I am satisfied with my very new responses to the 4. ...f6 line.

Byt the way I am not saying this is good but here is an unusual variation. I have not studied completely but seems to end in a draw by perpetual motion but as I said there may be a refutation to this...

Juszt to give one continuation [and there may probably  be a refutation]

If Ponziani is ever refuted will have to change my name to PONZED

or does anyone have a better name if and when the Ponziani is refuted?

Thanks will considered that one if and when the Ponziani is refuted!

While d3 may give a playable position, I am still going with Bb5 because of my new analysis.  There have been 1 or 2 sources recently giving how

Black can equalize vs d3. 

So that is one reason why I am trying to "rehabilitate" the Bb5 move in this variation. 

Why I think there will not be a refutation to the Ponziani that holds up.

To me, with best play for both sides--chess is a draw. To lose a game you have to make a mistake--this is key in my thinking.

I have studied the Ponziani for years and wrote two books on the Ponziani.

[one co-authored with Keith Hayward]

There are, of course, millions of lines, but, so far, I have been able to

come up with the normal first move advantage in all lines I have investigated. [and of course in some lines much more]

The Ponziani gives reasonable moves as a starter.  I do not think anyone who understands the Ponziani can say the whole opening is a mistake. 

Thus the Ponziani cannot be refuted.  That is per my sense of logic. Why should it be when White really has not made a mistake.  Also, why should it be refuted by either one or two lines when thousands of lines "work" for this opening"

Now in real life, I noticed the two possible refutations to the Ponziani even before the possible refuttions came out. So I HAD to have a response--there HAD to be a good reply to these two refutations--maybe even something no one has looked at before!

As in my favorite TV show of all time.."We will go where no one has gone before" 

If one of these lines comes up in Vote chess--it will be tested.  I have had one of the lines come up in my 15 minute games as I won that particular game. [my 15 minute play is not so good at all]  

I keep thinking of this senario--someone knows how to counter the 2 refutations and is playing correspondence chess and he plays the Ponz and his opponent goes for one of the refutations as after all " stastics show the Ponziani is a losing opening".  Almost wish I was able to play correspondence again--just for that senario!

looking on 365chess.com at this line, it does not even recommend the Nge7 move, likely because Black does not get a good target at e4 with this move.

Believe it or not, Black's replies from this position in post #214 shows the following replies:

4... f6, 4...Bd7, 4... dxe4, 4... Qd6, 4... Nf6, 4... Qd7 and 4... a6 in order of most frequently played irrespective of winning percentages for either side. Of the 7 replies, only 4... a6 leaves book lines at this point with Hlavcek-Pecina 0-1 where Black has a Rook for 2 pawns at the end of the game.

The 4... f6 line goes:

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. c3 d5 4. Qa4 f6 5. Bb5 Nge7 6. exd5 Qxd5 

and now White has 2 replies to take here: 7. d4 and 7. 0-0 (this is listed as the Steinitz variation at this point).

Looking at 7. d4 first, we get:

7. d4 Bd7 8. Be3 exd4 9. cxd4 Ne5 10. Nc3 Nxf3 11. gxf3 Qf5 12. O-O-O a6 13. d5

And here both moves, 13... Bxb5 and 13... 0-0-0 show as losing for Black

Looking at 7. 0-0 our line is:

7. O-O Bd7 8. d4 e4 9. Nfd2 f5 10. Bc4 Qd6 11. Qc2 Nd5

and whether White plays 12. Re1 or 12. Nb3, he is still holding all the trumps.

Of interest to note is that on move 10, if White plays 10. Na3, the game was won by Black but if White plays instead 10. Nb3, you get a winning position from one of Alekhine's games here.

Ponz does have some interesting ideas to look over here but with 7 moves available by move 4 for Black in this line, there appear to be plenty of ways to go wrong here for the defender. Will check some more lines here and at chesslab.com and see how the two DB's compare on this line.

Asa it turns out most data bases on the Ponziani are not so reliable because they do not take into account lines I have dreamed up which are not in the data  bases. 

Data bases are valuable and have their place but in some cases are not the last word...

Perhaps 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. c3 d5 4. Qa4 f6 5. Bb5 Ne7 6. exd5 Qxd5 7. d4 e4! is black's best try, even though it is less played. White seems to have some difficulties after 8. c4 Qd8 9.Nfd2 Kf7!?, as is shown by IM pfren.

I think Black gets an even worse game if instead of 9... Kf7!? he simply tries to punish the Knight move with 9... Qxd4. Now White has two choices to play. He can either hit at the Queen with 10. Nb3, which to me seems inferior to 10. 0-0, when his structure is solidified and forces Black into either 10... Bd7 or 10. a6, both of which lose in light of that White has more space and active piece play here. 9.... Kf7!? is very interesting to view in this opening as this takes pressure off the a5-e8 diagonal. Black should be able to at least achieve some equality, especially if he can come out of the ensuing exchanges with a decent position.

i would have to agree there as several games I have entered into, including some minor piece sacrifices for up to 3 pawns, do not register in their games archives. Still, as a stepping stone, they are better than nothing, especially if one as little time to read tomes of information on particular openings.