Jeff, you misunderstand or I did not make myself clear. What I am saying that in the Ponziani the inclusion of Nf3 and Nc6 makes all the difference in the world. So saying 1. e4 c5 2. c3 is comparable to the Ponziani is a very poor anology. Of course the variation 1. e4 e5 2. c3?? is bad for White.
And why are you comparing lines which give White a .+0.45 and a +0.50 as some kind of refutation to the Ponziani?
There is far more to the Ponziani than you realize. Just as there was far more to the Ponziani than the 2nd best player in the world realized.
But you digress from the point of this column which is about records which will never be broken--do you have some of these? [how about the most perfect games of bowling by one player--13 strikes in a row--over 450 such games??]
I don't see much difference in the Ponziani either. 1. e4 e5 2. c3 has about the same eval (-0.38) as 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. c3 does (-0.27) after d5. The only difference I see is that, in the first line, 2. c3 Nf6 is also better for black. So when you say "it makes all the difference in the world" I'd have to disagree. It's just a minute fraction of a pawn difference and 3. c3 is only very slightly better than 2. c3. They are both better for black. I'm not going by old book lines though. I'm going by Stockfish's evaluations, which are far superior to old opening theory from the 1700's by Domenico Ponziani or the 1800's by Howard Staunton. Even in the early 1900's the top GM's knew that The Ponziani was a dubious opening. In 1904, Frank Marshall wrote "There is no point in White's third move (3. c3 in the Ponziani) unless Black plays badly. ... White practically surrenders the privilege of the first move".
Jeff, you misunderstand or I did not make myself clear. What I am saying that in the Ponziani the inclusion of Nf3 and Nc6 makes all the difference in the world. So saying 1. e4 c5 2. c3 is comparable to the Ponziani is a very poor anology. Of course the variation 1. e4 e5 2. c3?? is bad for White.
And why are you comparing lines which give White a .+0.45 and a +0.50 as some kind of refutation to the Ponziani?
There is far more to the Ponziani than you realize. Just as there was far more to the Ponziani than the 2nd best player in the world realized.
But you digress from the point of this column which is about records which will never be broken--do you have some of these? [how about the most perfect games of bowling by one player--13 strikes in a row--over 450 such games??]