Ponziani Opening

Zephuros you make a mistake when you think the game explorer gives the best moves., for an example of this look at my best game posted about a day ago. I played a move not given by explorer and the move I played was best and helped me win.

Also, however, I agree that the d3 line is not that great. BUT I have found another line which I think is very good [it is not on chess explorer as nobody has thought of the line and played it before]

Regarding  1. e4  e5  2. Nf3  Nc6  3. c3  f5  I know that 4. d4 is a good line and have shown this in my book.  However my book also shows that after 3. c3  f5  4. exf5! is quitegood and better than its reputation and this despite it not being much on explorer.

If one wants to progress to the highest levels--he will realize that because a move is not on explorer--that in itself --is not a reason to write it off.

Too many times I have seen players say a move is not good just because it is not on explorer.

Also please remember explorer also makes mistakes. and moves suggested are not best-sometimes.  to play chess you gotta have an open mind.

Reminds me of my very favorite song"

Won't you listen to reason?

Will you open your eyes?

Its a wonder what you'll find..

with an open mind...

you may be surprised!..

Firebrand gave me a line in the Ponziani that is not good for

White and I agree with him and thank him for showing me the line.

I know the Ponziani well but did not know that line.

Fortunately [for me and the Ponziani] he made me think about the whole 3. c3  d5  4. Qa4  f6 line and this led me to find some good improvements though not in the exact line he gave.

Back when I was a good ICCF player we did not have vote chess or data bases or even computer chess that was above 2100 -- it would have been nice to have these but on the other hand --all my opponents would have the same access.

Firebrand, I noticed you are playing in your first USCCC [I think you are]

do they still have preliminary rounds and then the finals made up of the winners of the prelims?

I am wishing you good luck and play in the finals. I was lucky because when I played in the finals there were no data bases [at least none that I knew of} and also the computers which existed were not as strong as the players.

With data bases as they are now--as you mention many lines play to a draw if you do not innovate--this causes more draws then when I played.

I have a record in the finals that I think will not be broken or I should say tied before I die. I am the only player who scored all wins [7] with Black.

When I played there was an unfortunate incident. I had one game with

white vs the

sicilian and at an early stage was winning.

But then the player I was playing apparently did something wrong and was replaced and then I got no credit for the game that I was about to win and then I had to play White against a new player. [new player added to the finals]

WEAK WEAK AND WEAK

Wow!  Looks like I stuck my foot in it, I totally misread the situation seeing that unrated combined with the d3 move.  I appreciate the kind enlightenment.  I should have looked at the other rating and I would have bit my tongue.  I'm surprised he didn't.  

 I also would love to play the Ponziani more, I just don't know about that .....f4 line and like you say, Explorer has little on it.  I watched the Ponziani video on ICCChessFM, he said he played the .....f4 line, maybe that is why he didn't give out any information on it.

Ponz, I too was at the LaSalle Hotel in Chicago for the US Open in '73, it was the highlight of my life and my last tournament as I had to go make a living, I haven't played since until I joined Chess.com.  Good luck with your medicals and with your secret move.

 Did you make it downtown for the Deepdish Pizza?  

Hi Zephuros,

Wow! that US Open in Chicago was in a sense my very last tournament USCF over the board I ever played in. It was quite an experience. I have a very interesting story about that tournament. It is on the forum for the Ponziani Power chess team I am on.

I still have the paper back book on that tournament and some of my games are published in the book--do you have that?

I am inviting you to join our team - it is called Ponziani Power. We are playing 3 vote chess games now. If you join you can vote or just watch the games in progress. If you join the team you will learn a lot about the Ponziani Opening and may have to endure some of my old timer stories as I have on their forum [that is optional]

I have in the distant past been to the downtown deepdish pizza places back the uno was one of them. I can drive to

chicago but hate it. Hate the traffic and bein on a many lane highway.

Twice, some 40 years ago I could not make my way back to Kankakee and ended up in Indiana

Hi David,

   I really enjoyed your book Center Counter Uprising and have had a lot of fun playing the line.  At my club, however, I seem to lose always to a couple of stronger players who both use

      1.e4 d5  2.exd5 Qxd5  3.Nc3 Qa5  4.d4 Nf6  5.Nf3 Bf5  6.d5!? against me and I've been lucky to draw on rare occasions only.  What's your opinion of the move?  What do you recommend against it?

Thanks!!

I  very much agree that after 6. d5 then    6. ...c6 is the best move and seems to give Black some advantage

The critical test for Center Counter is early Bc4 and Bd2, not this lame Nf3-stuff.

White aims for Qe2, d5 and if possible a knight exchange on f6, followed by long castling and and pawn storm. This is putting real pressure on black.

One main-line:

White has clearly has the better play here.

Black should find some real improvement.

-Hi, Turm, I am no longer an expert on the C

enter Counter but in the line you gave--this probably should be the continuation:

Obviously QxB!  :-P

So far in this thread I don`t not see how White can have advantage after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.c3 d5 4.Qa4 f6 (which seems to be good way for Black to play for win - ponz was unable to refute FirebrandX`s analysis).

Also If Black plays for draw - it`s not clear how White will reach advantage after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.c3 Nf6 4.d4 Nxe4 5.d5 Nb8!?

Firebrands analysis while very good is on a side line which can be avoided.

I enjoy playing against 1. e4  e5  2. Nf3  Nc6  3. c3  Nf6  4. d4  Nxe4  5. d5  Nb8    [In this line there are some rather interesting lines for White.]

Regarding the line  1. e4  e5  2.Nf3  Nc6  3. c3  d5  4. Qa4  f6  I will admit when the book was written I was ill and unable take part in much of the analysis of this very complex varition.  But recently I have been studying the line and attempting to add improvements.

Any opening is a draw with best play for both sides. The question is does the Ponziani have enough variety and good lines to give White reasonable play--and the verdict is an opinion.

Those who are interested can maybe join a team in the vote test to try out some of their favorite themes against the Ponziani. Also those who are menbers of Ponziani Power group play lines against each other. And some new analysis is sometimes published for the group.

Also, there is an independent Ponziani Theme tournament about to start [I think]

For those who are interested it is quite difficult to write a comprehensive book on an entire opening. One that has rarely been played before. The Ponziani has been played incorrectly sometimes in the past--even by grandmasters.  It is difficult to give the best lines for both sides and what to avoid and what not to avoid. I have noticed a couple of mistakes in the book and will correct them if a future book is published.  Also, I have found a lot of improvements to add to the future.

Also ponz and probably some other Ponziani fanatics seems to be only persons convinced about White advantage after 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. c3 Nf6 4. d4 Nxe4 5. d5 Ne7 6. Nxe5 Ng6 7. Qd4 Qf6 8.Qxe4 Qxe5 9. Qxe5+ Nxe5

@ponz

"Reasonable play" is very subjective meaning. Also your argument about "any opening as draw with best play for both sides" ignores fact that many openings are making Black to solve more serious problems than Ponziani.

White does not usually play the line you gave any more but there was a position resulting a few moves after that line which was said to be dead equal and I did show it was not.  There are better lines for White after 5. d5 Ne7.

The position you give looks quite equal but there is more to it than meets the eye. But still I would now suggest a different continuation.

Also, there are very few "Ponziani fanatics"--only one that I know of...

[and that one is only 1/2 a Ponziani fanatic]

I played the ponziani in otb chess for about one year and did well with it until my opponents came to the board prepared for it and were no longer surprised by my opening choice . It doesnt give black as many serious problems as does the Ruy, Scotch and even many lines of the Italian game imo. 

After the moves 1. e4  e5  2. Nf3  Nc6  3. c3  d5  4. Qa4  f6

White has two lines:  5. d3  and  5 Bb5

After 5.Bb5  Nge7  White has two main moves

6. 0-0   and   6. d4

In this last variation, Firebrand gave a refutation to 6. d3 [if I remember right]  But 6. d3 while refuted--is not one of the 2 main lines at that point.

When the book, Play the Ponziani was written there was a period of time when I was  incapacitated and thus my co author had to supply the material for this line: 1. e4  e5  2. Nf3  Nc6  3. c3  d5  4. Qa4   f6.  

There is a large section in the book on this line but sorry to say I am not "up" on the theory of this particular line.   In the last couple of months, I have been studying the theory of this line and have come up with improvements for White. I do not dispute that White has not done well against 4. ... f6 in the past. 

All I am saying is that the whole line is very complex and I have found some improvements and the final verdict is out as far as I am concerned on that particular line.  

Chess is a very hard and complex game. Some lines which look bad can later be seen to be ok and some lines which look good can possibly be refuted.

I will agree that correspondence chess is one good way to test lines but in such a complex variation with many possible lines even they can get it wrong [sometimes].