Ponziani discussion without spam

One would think professional chessplayers would take to it more frequently, if for no other purpose than securing the needed draw. Its absence speaks volumes.

Repeating the same idiotic argument again and again. In fact White can afford almost everything in 1st move and not to lose with best play on both sides. With ponz`s arguments we can promote also crap openings like 1.a3; 1.Nh3 1.Na3 1.h4 1.a4 etc. which we may claim "sound", only because White can fight for draw in these openings. :)

Ponz111 has started to promote Blackmar-Diemer gambit (BDG), just because it`s listed as top 10 best openings, according to some (patzer vs patzer) statistics.

IM Kevin Denny has stated "To convince an adherent of the BDG that it is unsound, is like trying to convince a child that there is no Santa Claus".

Something similar (like "To convince an adherent of the Ponziani that it is allowing Black to equalise easily..." ) can be said about Ponz111 and other  Ponziani aficionados.

Ponz111 continues his tactics claiming equal positions as better for White. In the following position (after 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. c3 Nge7 4. Bc4 d5 5. exd5 Nxd5 6. O-O Be7 7. Re1 O-O 8. Nxe5 Nxe5 9. Rxe5 Be6):

Ponz111 writes:

And here someone posts the very bad move of 10. d4?? for White. White has won a pawn and should consolidate his position with the far better and more conservative move of 10. d3 and Black has some compensation but the compensation is not worth a pawn.

This comment is a good illustration of problem for chess players who plays rare, offbeat openings - they lack knowledge in more classical, more complex openings like Ruy Lopez, which give you more chess understanding than Ponziani.

Compare this position with the main one arising from Marshall attack (after 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 O-O 8. c3 d5 9. exd5 Nxd5 10. Nxe5 Nxe5 11. Rxe5 c6).

In Ponziani position it`s no good for White to play 10.d4, while in Marshall attack position 12.d4 is aknowledged as the best move (while 12.d3 is harmless, because pawn on d3 is weak and going to became object of attack) with large amount of theory and even then White has a problems to demonstrate opening advantage, which is the reason why anti-Marshall systems are introduced.

If ponz111 would have knowldege on Ruy Lopez he would never make such an absurd claims.

Also in the Ponziani line Black can afford to play 9... c6, reaching similar and definitely no worse position to compare with Marshall attack.

Ponz111 continues his trash talk calling Marshall`s opinion on Ponziani ("There is no point in White's third move unless Black plays badly. ... White practically surrenders the privilege of the first move.") minority view, despite of fact that no strong modern GM (rated over 2600) plays Ponziani on a regular basis and Ponziani is not popular in a lower levels too. For example -  I`ve never faced Ponziani in a rated classical time control game.

Reasons to play Ponziani, given by ponz111 (surprise weapon, less theory,  a lot of traps) suits to even less correct openings like Blackmar - Diemer, useful only in club level to play against unprepared opponents.

That's the general perception for about a hundred years or so. Most of the 78 pages of posts in that other thread are just brain-dead trolling.

That`s one of the reasons why did I create this thread - not allowing reasonable arguments to sink into ponz111 spam.

The last time I saw a Ponziani, it was at the Kansas City Renaissance Festival two or three years ago. They have a chess booth there with some guys dressed as monks playing all comers (for a couple bucks). I played 3...d5 and blasted the poor monk in about 20 moves.

While most of the standard replies look good enough, I think d5 brings up the most direct and theoretical challenge to the opening. White slacks off on attacking the e-pawn, so Black gets in the "equalizing" counterpunch.

Yeah, I like d5 too.

Speaking on position after 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. c3 Nge7 4. Bc4 d5 5. exd5 Nxd5 6. O-O Be7 7. Re1 O-O 8. Nxe5 Nxe5 9. Rxe5 Be6 (see # 18 and # 30) ponz111 states that I`ve given "10. d4? as the best move for White." It`s blatant lie!

In #18 I marked 10.d4 with "?!" which means that this move is at least dubious and White is not recommended to play it.  In #30 I stated that it`s no good for White to play 10.d4.

Another example of ponz111`s dishonesty.

Speaking on position after 10.d3 ponz111 uses Fritz4 evaluation (0.32) as evidence of his claim that Black does not have sufficent compensation for a pawn. Firstly - using  Fritz4 is laughable nowadays. Secondly - even the strongest engine may give wrong evaluation in positions in which one side has positional compensation for material. And finally - no good chess theoretician uses engine without asisstance of his own brains.

oh shut up musacha.

Chess.com stuff has aknowledged my true identity and title, which is not  business of sockpuppet accounts like you.

Ponz111 continues  to repeat his nonsense, claiming:  "if you put the position on your own chess engine or any really good chess engine it will show a White advantage with either 10. d3 or 10. Bb3."

1) It`s a poor argument, even if it would be true, as I`ve pointed out before.

2) It`s simply not true. Houdini does not show White advantage at all.

Some guy from Poland - dzikus is trying to help ponz111 with his "analysis", using Stockfish, to prove advantage for White.

The level of his "analysis" is the best illustrated with fact that he analyses wrong position - after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.c3 Nge7 4.Bc4 d5 5.exd5 Nxd5 6.O-O Be7 7.Re1 he gives obviously weaker move - 7...Be6?! (instead of correct 7....0-0).

Dzikus is demonstrating Stockfish analysis which proves nothing.

After 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. c3 Nge7 4. Bc4 d5 5. exd5 Nxd5 6. O-O Be7 7. Re1 O-O 8.Nxe5 Nxe5 9. Rxe5 Be6 10. Bb3 c6 11. d4 Bd6 12. Re2 (12.Re1 looks like more natural move)

dzikus gives  12....a5 (move preferred by Stockfish) as the main line. Moves like 12...Qh4 or 12...Bg4 13.f3 Bh5 are obviously better.

Let's make it happen!

Black has several good moves  to play in 3rd move and ponz111 and other "theoreticians" are unable to prove White`s advantage even against odd looking move like 3...Nge7.

If you play 7...O-O 8.Nxe5 Nxe5 9.Rxe5 Be6 this is just a transposition. Do you prefer 9...c6, 9...Nb6 or another move instead of Be6 at that point?

9...c6  (like in Marshal attack) is playable too, but also I dont see problems for Black in 9...Be6 line.

Speaking on your 10.Bb3 line - after 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. c3 Nge7 4. Bc4 d5 5. exd5 Nxd5 6. O-O Be7 7. Re1 Be6 8.Nxe5 Nxe5 9. Rxe5 O-O 10. Bb3 c6 11. d4 Bd6 12. Re2 Qh4 13. g3

you give only 13...Qh5, while i would prefer 13...Qh3 which is typical for Marshal attack positions, which are very similar to this one, as you`ve admitted.

Obviously you trust your engine too much.

The larger point is that these guys have to use Stockfish or other engines, because they are lame and can't analyze things on their own credibly without some C-player finding an obvious omission or blunder.