LoveUChess wrote:
Palying c3 and depriving knight of its square doesnot make any sense.
Hmmm? Do you consider the Ruy Lopez a bad opening?
Ponziani Opening
Sort:
Maybe you could host a Ponziana themed tournament.
ReasonableDoubt wrote:
brilliantboy wrote:
LoveUChess wrote:
Palying c3 and depriving knight of its square doesnot make any sense.
Hmmm? Do you consider the Ruy Lopez a bad opening?
That has no relevance at all. C3 is played far too early in the Ponziani and allows black a nice game, where in the Ruy c3 is played with a strong and logical plan to play d4 after white is castled and developed, not on move 4 where white's king is in the center and white is completely undeveloped and exposed to counterattack. Another important point is that in the Ruy the knight doesn't even go to c3 (it usually moves Nd2-f1-g3 or e3 looking at either f5 or d5). It's simply too early to try to take the center, and theory/practice has proven that as white actually scores slightly worse than black in the main line with Nf6. Comparing c3 in the Ponziani to c3 in the Ruy is the rough equivalent of comparing f5 in the dubious Latvian (1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f5?!) to an eventual f5 push in the King's Indian Defense. One of them is part of a logical plan and is executed after development, and the other is a premature and unsound stab at the center.
I'm quite familiar with the Spanish. My point was that it's stupid to make assessments on the worth of an opening on their positional aesthetic or what general principles they follow (the same kind of attitude that scoffed at openings like the Sveshnikov for so long). The knight is only deprived of "its square" if you intend to put him there.
As for it being too early to make a play for the center, the Scotch does the same with 3. d4 and succeeds, although not establishing the mobile pawn duo White wishes for. The problem with the Ponziani is that White's plan is too slow and Black can counteract it with d5 or Nf6.
The Ponziani is far from dubious (which is why your comparison with the Latvian is flawed). Does it offer White the best try for an advantage? Definitely not. Does it offer both sides an interesting game with the opportunity to outplay their opponent? Yes
David Taylor of course is more qualified than us to comment so perhaps he can tell us what he believes is White's best continuation against Black's three main moves (d5, Nf6 and f5)
I have played correspondence chess at a high level--by this I mean master and up were my usual opponents. I have scored well with the Ponziani. It only has the reputation of being "dull" because players did not know how to play this opening.
It was a "vicious circle" first the opening had a bad reputation--second thus very very few people specialized in this opening, thus those who did were often fairly low rated and invariably did not know some of the main theory--and they got bad results etc.
Please realize that theory has very much changed in the last 8 or so years.
As to the person who thinks Black can easily equalize in just 10 moves--he is wrong. If he thinks the opening is just for playing 1300 level players--how have I beaten many masters with this opening?
I will give you one of my games just exactly from the last position given by Mr. Reasonable Doubt:
Darn Darn, I had game all on chess board with comments and it got lost! darn darn!Can any smart person help me?
Hope to retireve that game somehow but I am older and not good with computers. A suggestion to Mr. Reasonable Doubt. It is quite okay to be skeptible about almost anything--I am a skeptic myself. But you need facts re whatever you wish to be skeptical about. Here you seem to be parroting what you have heard from other sources.
For example 3. c3 is bad because it takes away where the Knight might move--I have seen this before. Maybe 3. Nc3 is bad as it leads to the 4 Knights? Or maybe 3. Nc3 is a bad place for the Knight as it prevents White from obtaining his ideal pawn center with 3. c3 4. d4 and already 1. e4 is played?
Conventional wisdom is sometimes but not always correct--remember do not move your Queen early in the opening? In the 7th United States Correspondence Chess Championship finals--I played with Black 1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5!? and won 4 out of 4 with the Black pieces.
Having Imagination is sometimes very good in chess. Having the imagination to help revivify the Ponziani and the Center Counter [Qxd5] has helped my chess immenesly :)
I have brain damage and had to give up chess and correspondence chess. I have not played any type of over the board chess tournaments since the US Open Chicago 1973. I even had to give up my contributations to the current book co authored with Keith Hayward. One of my last correspondence type chess games was Taylor vs TCCMB Team start date [as I look it up] April 6, 2001. The game was seen on internet and lasted a year. Right after that I had brain damage and lost a lot of my visual etc and there are some very simple things I cannot do. Or I would take your challenge. As I did with the match vs a group mentioned. The correct reply after 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. c3 d5 is 4. Qa4.
I have played "worthy players" To make the finals of the United States Correspondence Chess Championship you must take first place in a preliminary section. The 14 players in that Championship were all "worthy" :) 80% of the players I have played were master or higher.
Wow! You are really dogmatic! Do you have a religion "ANTIPONZIANI" :)
Vincent_Valentine wrote:
It sounds to me like you tried to write up the game in the chat box, and the problem with this is, the reply box 'times out' after a certain time, meaning that it erases everything when you try to submit it. Highlight and copy all of your work before posting, and if it doesn't work (as is often the case for lengthy posts) just paste and try again, it should work.
Honestly Vincent, I cannot even highlight and copy etc. There are some very simple things I can no longer do. I will try and ask my son to help me. Or if any reader will email me I can send him some games especially the game I tried and maybe that reader could post game for me?
ReasonableDoubt wrote:
ponz111 wrote:
I am David Taylor, coauthor of Play the Ponziani. Sometimes I see a posting of how dull and boring is the Ponziani. Those who say this have little knowledge of the Ponziani and are usually just parroting what they have heard.
The Ponziani is a dynamic opening if you know the theory or some of the theory.
I will be glad to address any questions on this opening.
If you know the theory, you know that black basically equalizes in something around 10 moves by playing natural moves and it's garbage only useful for beating 1300s who have never seen it before and are afraid to play Ne7 after d5.
The only real reason that anyone would bother playing the Ponziani is hoping that black will play d5 after which sharp play ensues (although black is the one playing for the advantage!). Even in 1904, it was considered antique and basically useless.
"There is no point in White's third move unless Black plays badly. ... White practically surrenders the privilege of the first move." -Frank Marshall
white has a blatant space advantage
hello mr taylor i must say i absolutely!!!! love your book play the ponziani i have a qestion it is would you recomend me to play the ponziani agansit alex onschuck?
evansgambit15 wrote:
hello mr taylor i must say i absolutely!!!! love your book play the ponziani i have a qestion it is would you recomend me to play the ponziani agansit alex onschuck?
Sure--I would play the Ponziani against anyone. Even Alex Onshuck! :) What do you have to lose? If you do play the game send me the moves!
im playing him in a simul
will do mr taylor
Suggest when you play a very high rated player--Play something sharp. In my last over the board tournament I played 1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Bc4 cxb2
5. Bxb2 vs a former US over the board champion.
I used to know a 1900/2000 player who played the Ponziani. He always hoped for 1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. c3 Nf3 4. d4 exd4 5. e5...with a violent attack.
And anyone numb enough to play into this, pretty much went under by move 20. Otherwise, the game was either a drawish, dud (3...Nf6 lines) or tactical nightmares (3... d5 lines).
Personally, I prefer to get my King's Bishop out on move 3 and then castle early, keeping options open, as stated above. Though, like with many discredited lines, you can play it if you like and even do fairly well with it.
ReasonableDoubt wrote:
ponz111 wrote:
I have played correspondence chess at a high level--by this I mean master and up were my usual opponents. I have scored well with the Ponziani. It only has the reputation of being "dull" because players did not know how to play this opening.
It was a "vicious circle" first the opening had a bad reputation--second thus very very vew people specialized in this opening, thus those who did were often fairly low rated and invariably did not know some of the main theory--and they got bad results etc.
Please realize that theory has very much changed in the last 8 or so years.
As to the person who thinks Black can easily equalize in just 10 moves--he is wrong. If he thinks the opening is just for playing 1300 level players--how have I beaten many masters with this opening?
What advantage does white obtain in the main line 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)? Black has a fine game already and white has lost his initiative. Another reason that the Ponziani is considered questionable is that even if it was perfectly acceptable as you claim it to be, it doesn't fit anyone's style: Few people play an opening that their opponent gets to choose either quiet play (Nf6) or tactical/sharp play (d5) and the direction of the game is out of their hand. I also can't be sure at all that you are who you say you are (as this is the internet, after all) so if you're going to argue for the Ponziani you'll have to defend the opening itself and not your results with it.
Ok here is one of my games after your 9. Qxe5+ Nxe5 and now Dave Taylor vs MChess Pro Test Game
10. Nd2 d6 11. Nxc4 Nxc4 12. Bxc4 Be7 13. 0-0 0-0 14. Be3 Bf6 15. a4 a6
16. a5 Bf5 17. Rfe1 Rae8 18. f3 [not really the best move--White should strive to not move his King side Pawns. 18. ...Re7 19. Kf2 h6 20. Re2 Rfe8
21. Rae1 Bh4+ [his only play is on King Side Pawns] 22. g3 Bf6 23. Ba7 Rxe2+
24. Rxe2 Kf8 25. Rxe8+ Kxe8 26. Ke3 Ke7 27. Bd4 Bxd4+ 28. Kxd4 [White aims for b2-b4, followed by c3-c4 completing the basic plan, in this case the b4-b5 break appears ot be winning--notice Black has virtually no play--he must just try and defend] 28. ...Bc2 29. b4 Kf6 30. Be2 g5 31. c4 Bg6 32. b5 (Black cannot capture the b-pawn as then White will obtain the outside passer--therefore Black must wait for b5 x a6 leaving him with a weak a pawn) 32. ...Bf5 33. c5 Bc8 34. c6 and White went on to win. [maybe someone could put this on a reality board?
ReasonableDoubt wrote:
ponz111 wrote:
I am David Taylor, coauthor of Play the Ponziani. Sometimes I see a posting of how dull and boring is the Ponziani. Those who say this have little knowledge of the Ponziani and are usually just parroting what they have heard.
The Ponziani is a dynamic opening if you know the theory or some of the theory.
I will be glad to address any questions on this opening.
If you know the theory, you know that black basically equalizes in something around 10 moves by playing natural moves and it's garbage only useful for beating 1300s who have never seen it before and are afraid to play Ne7 after d5.
The only real reason that anyone would bother playing the Ponziani is hoping that black will play d5 after which sharp play ensues (although black is the one playing for the advantage!). Even in 1904, it was considered antique and basically useless.
"There is no point in White's third move unless Black plays badly. ... White practically surrenders the privilege of the first move." -Frank Marshall
What about 7. Nxg6 hxg6 8. Qe2 f5 9. f3
This seems to be 1-0, someone tell me where I went wrong.
LoveUChess wrote:
ponz111 wrote:
I have brain damage and had to give up chess and correspondence chess. I have not played any type of over the board chess tournaments since the US Open Chicago 1973. I even had to give up my contributations to the current book co authored with Keith Hayward. One of my last correspondence type chess games was Taylor vs TCCMB Team start date [as I look it up] April 6, 2001. The game was seen on internet and lasted a year. Right after that I had brain damage and lost a lot of my visual etc and there are some very simple things I cannot do. Or I would take your challenge. As I did with the match vs a group mentioned. The correct reply after 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. c3 d5 is 4. Qa4.
I have played "worthy players" To make the finals of the United States Correspondence Chess Championship you must take first place in a preliminary section. The 14 players in that Championship were all "worthy" :) 80% of the players I have played were master or higher.
Wow! You are really dogmatic! Do you have a religion "ANTIPONZIANI" :)
In that case your games will be worthy of looking at. Dont forget that a lot off Things have changed since 1973 in corr chess .
There are Lots of good moves after Qa4. Black equalizes at move 3!!. What a bogus opening as white. It is not recomended to play against a good player.
My last tournament over the board games were in 1973. Won the 7th USCCC finals in 1989 and somet of my Ponziani theory came around years 1995 to 2000. And of course many have contributed to the theory."It is not recommended to play against a good player? lol WHO does the recommending?
I am David Taylor, coauthor of Play the Ponziani. Sometimes I see a posting of how dull and boring is the Ponziani. Those who say this have little knowledge of the Ponziani and are usually just parroting what they have heard.
The Ponziani is a dynamic opening if you know the theory or some of the theory.
I will be glad to address any questions on this opening.