Anyone consider the Ponziani?

Another win just now using the Ponziani Counter-Gambit.

I love it when White plays the Ponziani!

the problem with the ponziani is that once black learns the anti-intuitive set up which mostly neutralizes white's idea (d5, f6, nge7) white must choose between a tricky but objectively bad line with bb5 and the anemic d3 (which looks like a czech pirc as white)

its either this or being worse but trying to keep being trappy with bb5.
on paper, after d3, white has 0.00, but man is this a sorry sight. They are good openings with white that have a close to 0.00 eval like the g3 vienna or the bishops opening. One can tell you the advantages of being playing those lines and their flavor. But White's version of 0.00 in the ponziani is an anemic concession that "at least im not worse". Black has the slightly better stats in master games, and once you understand the critical formation involving, d5, f6, and usually nge7, blacks best ideas almost play themselves, whereas how exactly white plays for life in his position is far less clear. For example, black doesnt need to castle right away but he can very quickly begin his attack with g5 and h5.
i wish i can be a fan of the ponziani but everything i have seen of it tells me its a one trick pony. here is another variable, you usually dont want a white opening to be worse than pure equality unless you have a very good reason but even granting equality the ponziani contradicts its own flavor. White wants tricks and or a big center and the critical main line grants white neither. Compare this with an opening that's eval wise incorrect but practically viable like the Van geet attack 1.nc3 d5 2.e4 d4 3.nce2. The very best computer line agaisnt this is like -0.2 -0.3 where it is white who is technically trying to equalize but if white is booked he gets a closed manuevering game (which is what wanted) with all pieces on the board so good for outplaying your opponent and he likely understands the tabiyas of the position better. That is a reasonable tradeoff for a -0.2 for some players. 
Ponziani plays more like "let me try this trick and if my opponent knows the testing line, at least im alive and not worse". It goes completely agaisnt its own ethos. 

In practical terms, the Counter-Gambit 3...f5!? gives Black a great position. It's almost a refutation IMO.

Who cares if Stockfish says that White is 0.33 of a pawn up at a depth of 35 ply? It's totally meaningless unless the game is engine vs engine.

it absolutely does matter because in an age where everyone has a cloud engine on the phone, everytime you are playing a 2000+ player you have to prepare for the fact, they can memorize 25 lines of critical lines agaisnt you.
if you are a decent player and have reputation of being a ponziani expert, THIS is what you will face, they will have memorized exactly how to keep their edge from your 3...f5 idea.

The ponziani does give you good odds though

to lose

3...f5 isn't such a great way to meet the Ponziani. Black may equalize, but he has to play very well, and he does not put any pressure to white's position (which is the case after 3...d5 or 3...Nf6).

Here, the only way to stay in the game is 9...Qd6! but still Black isn't close to equality.

Black should probably reject 4...e4 in favor of 4...Qf6, but still he is a bit worse, and again white feels no pressure, objectively.

Most everyone at my level seems to play 6.Nxc6 in your example, not being able to resist doubling Black's pawns.

I actually then prefer 6...bxc6 and the big pawn centre, rather than the engine choice of dxc6 giving an isolated pawn on e4, but opening up the centre for Black's pieces.

I'll not be playing any Super GMs in the near future, so I certainly won't be an engine slave to 0.33 of a pawn disadvantage. Most of my games are taken out of book by move 6 or 7 anyway.

For several years I used to do a lot of engine analysis for another site, back when Rybka 3 & Houdini were the muts nuts, and, at least in online chess, most games even between titled players are out of book around moves 10 to 12 according to the 3m game database I was using back then...

Noone cares about a 0.33 or even the double of it engine evaluation.

The opening should be understandable, straightfoward to play, posing practical problems to the opponent, and logical.

3.c3 is a rather clumsy way to take control of the center which has the obvious disadvantage of denying the access to c3 for the knight, and the logical way to take advantage is either 3...Nf6 or 3...d5. The move 3...f5 doesn't care about this, and actually makes c2-c3 useful in case of 4.exf5 e4 5.Nd4.

As much as @pfren will protest this as he has in other forums with me, I’m a strong proponent for the Ponziani, certainly up until beyond my current rating.

I played Ponziani in the first game that took me above 2000, and the first game that took me above 2100, and I think the second time, too. It works.

People haven’t prepped it well enough, the plans for white are very intuitive and have some really nasty traps hidden in almost every line. 

There are definitely ways to equalise comfortably as black, but I’ve never found any of these lines to be particularly uncomfortable as white. There are some things that a player utilising this opening need to be aware of (I was recently schooled in an OTB game in a strange gambit sideline after 1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. c3 d5 4. Qa4 Nf6!? Which seems a terrible move at first glance but has some venomous lines) but it’s broadly been very successful for me.

I think my win-rate with it is hovering around 58-60% which is beyond solid.

Play the Stafford if you want traps or the Evans gambit, the ponziani has one trap which no one falls for.

It has literally dozens of traps, I could show you at least ten from memory alone 😂

This is how I destroy Ponziani lol