Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

The Ponziani Opening


  • 3 years ago · Quote · #21

    KnightOfDaLivingDead

    I've never used that opening before, so I dunno.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #22

    AndyClifton

    NimzoRoy wrote:

    Getting back to the original point here...


    "Ooooo, I hates when that happens!..."

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #23

    The_Gavinator

    This question may have a fairly obvious answer, but why is the Ponziani considered decent for beginners? I looked on youtube for a tutorial on this opening, and the main video I could find was "a good opening for beating sub-2000 players", reinforcing that point. Is it because masters would be more familiar with this opening, as ameteurs are not, or maybe they are better at exploiting the weaknesses such as the knight's lack of development on c3, or the uncastled king?

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #24

    Estragon

    The_Ponziani_Opening wrote:

    Yes, I realize that d5 is less popular... My problem is that on chess 365 (masters and nonmasters), and on chessgame's explorer, d5 leads to black having a higher win percentage than white. I've been messing around with this for a few weeks, and I too have a hard time playing against d5, while I do good against nf6.


    You can't pick an opening based on database stats and expect to be successful.  If those numbers held up more than half the time, everybody would be playing the highest-percentage lines. 

    I'm with NimzoRoy, you need to test-drive openings, try out different ones, because you will play much better in positions you feel comfortable playing than in ones you don't. 

     

    But at your level, almost any time you spend on openings is wasted.  Opening knowledge won't stop you from falling for simple tactics and dropping pieces or playing into mates.  Just play simply and get your pieces out and work on not losing them so quickly.  You will get better far faster that way.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #25

    TonyH

    The ponziani opening is "ok" and playable for any level but lacks the serious punch once a player understands what to do against it. Doesnt mean you cannt win but you will invest a lot of time trying to squeeze out an opening from a system that wont help you develop as a player. I had a slight epiphany reading my great predessors I when Kasparov said that players chess should develop along historical lines. this to me means play older systems first then learn the more modern ones. Kings gambits, guccio piano, evans gambits all the e4 e5 Nf3 with a fast c3 and d4 system. do this before moving on to the more complex ruy lopez and modern systems. You will be surprised how many puzzle pieces start fitting together once you do this. That said the ponziani opening sorta fits into this but runs into the quick ...d5 break in the center leaving white trying to sort out how to develop pieces and giving black a more free hand than other systems like the evans or guccio piano

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #26

    Gil-Gandel

    uhohspaghettio wrote:
    Gil-Gandel wrote:

    That's the dictionary definition - since chess.com starts you out with an assumed rating of 1200 by default, anyone who is an 1100 is even worse than that and has lost enough games to prove it.

    That is not the "dictionary definition" at all dummy, the average is 1200.

    god, how could you come up with that.

    I just did a little checking - found a player rated 1134, he's on the 28.8% percentile, so I figure an 1100 is mighty close to the bottom 25% of the membership. Since I've seen some piss-poor chess from players rated way higher than that, "bottom 25%" might as well do for "beginner" unless you want to think of a harsher name.

    Also, no need to call me "god", and any time you want to stop this three-minute woodpushing you call chess and play to a sensible time limit, we can find out which of us is the dummy.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #27

    RoffleMyWafflez

    The_Ponziani_Opening wrote:

    However, if they play the correct move, 3 ... d5 (or Na5 in the Fried Liver Attack), then black has a very good position. So please just post your opinions about the Ponziani, and tell me what you think.

    If you want my opinion, it sounds like you've been playing the "I want to get better at chess so I need to memorize openings" game.  It's okay-  we've all been there.  My real life friends have, most of my email chess buddies, and myself have all done it before.  If you want to improve, opening theory will not help you.  Not at your level and definitely not in blitz.  If you want to get better, focus on the fundamentals: tactical themes like pins and skewers, king safety, bad vs. good bishops, and pawn structures.  Even at my level (~1750) advanced opening theory is not crucial.

    And to answer your question the Ponziani is a fine opening.  But learning one trap line in it from a youtube video does not tell you anything about the underlying principles and goals of it.  If you want to learn a new opening I suggest you not let someone hand-feed you lines to play.  Go through some master games (preferably annotated) where it was played or use an engine to do some analysis yourself.  There's no sense in playing a move you don't understand.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #28

    Vivinski

    I like it, only problem with every e4 opening is that you'll most likely face sicillian more than anything else, so be prepared for that.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #29

    Estragon

    uhohspaghettio wrote:
    Gil-Gandel wrote:
    uhohspaghettio wrote:
    Gil-Gandel wrote:

    That's the dictionary definition - since chess.com starts you out with an assumed rating of 1200 by default, anyone who is an 1100 is even worse than that and has lost enough games to prove it.

    That is not the "dictionary definition" at all dummy, the average is 1200.

    god, how could you come up with that.

    I just did a little checking - found a player rated 1134, he's on the 28.8% percentile, so I figure an 1100 is mighty close to the bottom 25% of the membership. Since I've seen some piss-poor chess from players rated way higher than that, "bottom 25%" might as well do for "beginner" unless you want to think of a harsher name.

    Also, no need to call me "god", and any time you want to stop this three-minute woodpushing you call chess and play to a sensible time limit, we can find out which of us is the dummy.


    It doesn't matter how good or bad they are. Nobody should be called a beginner based on their rating. Everyone has their own potential and at the end of the day it's just a game for fun. If the bottom 1/3rd is a "beginner" according to your idiot logic, then when do we stop saying a person is a beginner? The bottom half? The top 1/3rd? It's ridiculous. You don't sound smart or clever or accomplished by acting like people below you are "beginners".


     

     

    He was being nice.  Would you prefer "patzers" instead?  "Fish" perhaps?

    "Beginners" at least gives people the benefit of the doubt that they are new to the game, and not just very bad at it. 

    And the intent of advice offered is to help the player improve and enjoy the game more, and nothing is gained by pretending he is stronger than he is.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #30

    Vivinski

    [COMMENT DELETED]
  • 3 years ago · Quote · #31

    Gil-Gandel

    uhohspaghettio wrote:
    Gil-Gandel wrote:
    uhohspaghettio wrote:
    Gil-Gandel wrote:

    That's the dictionary definition - since chess.com starts you out with an assumed rating of 1200 by default, anyone who is an 1100 is even worse than that and has lost enough games to prove it.

    That is not the "dictionary definition" at all dummy, the average is 1200.

    god, how could you come up with that.

    I just did a little checking - found a player rated 1134, he's on the 28.8% percentile, so I figure an 1100 is mighty close to the bottom 25% of the membership. Since I've seen some piss-poor chess from players rated way higher than that, "bottom 25%" might as well do for "beginner" unless you want to think of a harsher name.

    Also, no need to call me "god", and any time you want to stop this three-minute woodpushing you call chess and play to a sensible time limit, we can find out which of us is the dummy.


    It doesn't matter how good or bad they are. Nobody should be called a beginner based on their rating. Everyone has their own potential and at the end of the day it's just a game for fun. If the bottom 1/3rd is a "beginner" according to your idiot logic, then when do we stop saying a person is a beginner? The bottom half? The top 1/3rd? It's ridiculous. You don't sound smart or clever or accomplished by acting like people below you are "beginners".


    I'm not going to get into an argument about the word "idiot" when it's clear I'm dealing with an expert on the subject, but I'm not acting like all people below me are beginners - just players who do things like drop pieces left, right and centre, or leave a mate in one on the board (like someone I played around Christmas time here). And sometimes weak players are literally beginners. Case in point: not too long ago I played a teenager called ChessIsMaths and beat the $#it out of him. I was looking through my old games yesterday and I happened to notice his rating in online chess is now over 2200. Surprised Figure I wouldn't be beating him quite so easily any more...

    And like Estragon says, calling someone a beginner, rather than a rabbit or a moron, at least implies they're going to be a better player some time soon. Dial back the indignation-by-proxy, wouldja?

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #32

    NimzoRoy

    AndyClifton wrote:
    NimzoRoy wrote:

    Getting back to the original point here...


    "Ooooo, I hates when that happens!..."

    Andy, please keep that red-haired maniac away from me!

     


  • 3 years ago · Quote · #33

    dcremisi

    forgive my ignorance butt i dont even know the Ponzani.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #34

    Gil-Gandel

    F22Raptor wrote:

    forgive my ignorance butt i dont even know the Ponzani.


    Normally I'd give you a lmgfty link, but just this once... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponziani_Opening

    The OP's one game to date wasn't brilliant, but you don't expect much in even a ten-minute game unless both players are already reasonably skilled. And if it comes to that, every game I've ever played, later analysis shows I could have played it better.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #35

    Stampnl

    I can concurr that the Ponziani is indeed a fine opening for beginners like you and me. And I think that if you just remember that after 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 you play 3. c3 to prepare d4 that is all you need to know. Against the Sicilian  (1. ...c5 instead of 1. ...e5) you can allegedly play the same moves with the same idea: 1. e5 2. Nf3 3. c3 preparing d4, so that's a nice bonus.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #36

    AndyClifton

    Of course, they probably also said the Scotch was fine for lower-rateds...and then Kasparov played it (and won) in a WC match. Smile

    Any opening can give the opponent problems...and often one that an opponent is unfamiliar with can give you an advantage which outweighs the (theoretical) superiority of essaying Everybody's Favorite Brand.  Besides which, after the opening the gods have placed the middle game, and if you have an even game there there is still doubtless plenty of play left... Wink

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #37

    The_Gavinator

    Yeah that one game wasn't my most brilliant, I decided to mess around with the kid before I mated him too. I think I won't stay with this one, it would be a nice suprise in otb, but if it is mianly suitable for beginners, I would like to learn something I can get better with. I think I might try the Scotch, with the Nb3 line, as it is aggressive and simply allows my bishops to develop, letting me start to attack. I know openings aren't that important at my level, so I think I will stick with that, as it is played even at the grandmaster level (magnus carlsen), and just focus more on mid/end game.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #38

    Gil-Gandel

    It looked like you weren't quite up to speed on the K+R v K ending, but you got there. The Scotch is straightforward and to the point, there's very little wrong with it and it gets the pieces moving - and, as you say, you can focus on the mid/end game. At our level, even if you do come out of the opening with a theoretical advantage you still have to have the necessary technique to exploit it, even if GMs can take that part for granted. :D

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #39

    coachhoffer

    Funny someone named UnratedGamesOnly can be so derisive in his comments over someone's rating!


Back to Top

Post your reply: