Ponziani discussion without spam

If 4.d4 leads to a Black advantage and 4.d3 does not, I would say 4.d4 is a pretty craptastic move.

A reversed Philidor structure shouldn't be bad for White. Reversed systems are played pretty frequently, you know.

Condescension doesn't work with me better try another strategy.

After which Black has the pleasant choice between 6...Bg4 and 6...Be7.

Condescension? Look at your posts, and the title of this thread, and then reread the comments until they make sense. I wasn't being condescending, I was replying to your remark in a way I thought you might be able to understand. You say a move is 'craptastic' with zero analysis, reasoning, or evidence that you've even considered it. 4.d4 has been heavily analyzed, and if the verdict ends up being a Black advantage, it is a poor move and White should prefer 4.d3, which does not lead to a Black advantage. Am I making sense to you?

"Reversed systems are played pretty frequently, you know."

"Am I making sense to you?"

Both highly condescending statements.  I don't mind, I'm a condescending prick myself.  But I know that, and it allows me to recognize it in others.  Typically the things we don't recognize in ourselves are the things that annoy us most about others.

Anyhoo, 4 out of 5 dentists agree, if in an open game beginning with 1. e4 e5, White's best course of action consists of him playing c3 and d3 *without* his KB out to c4 or b5, that's "craptastic".  I even looked it up in the dictionary, and this is the precise definition of the word.

I like it better than 6. dxe5 but when White is *struggling* for equality because of his 3rd and 4th moves, I think the whole Ponziani can be relegated to the "Craptastic" bucket.

Sorry, I just assumed correctly that you were inexperienced at chess and openings in general and was trying to inform you. I now know that I was wasting my time. Let me know if you ever want to have a real, mature discussion about anything chess-related.

Yes of course I'm inexperienced at chess that's why I acheived a high enough correspondence rating *before* engines to gain entry into the US Correspondence Championship qualification round.

Thanks for playing!

Correspondence being the key word.

Your position in your game vs ponz111 is worse. White is tied up, and if black wants, he will get a pawn advantage at least.

Whatever: my credentials as they are however would make it obvious I'm not "inexperienced at chess and openings in general".

12. Na3 may be just as playable as the 12. Qd5 line: I'm guessing the game has gone 12. Na3 e4  13. Nc4 Rab8  14. Qd5

If so these are the 3 viable lines Stockfish is giving:

(14.Qd5 Stockfish 4 64 -0.26 (depth 26)  exf3+ 15.gxf3 Rfe8+ 16.Kd2 Ne4+ 17.fxe4 Bxg1 18.Bd3 c6 19.Qf5 Qxf5 20.exf5 Bxh2 21.b3 d5 22.Na5 c5 23.Kc2 Rb6 24.Bd2 Be5 25.Rh1 Bd6 26.Rh3)

(14.Qd5 -0.26 (depth 25)  Nh3 15.Rh1 exf3+ 16.Qxf3 Rfe8+ 17.Kd2 Nf2 18.Qxf6 gxf6 19.Nxb6 Rxb6 20.Rg1 Rd6+ 21.Kc2 Re1 22.Rb1 Rdd1 23.c4 f5 24.h3 d6 25.b4 Ne4 26.g4 Rxf1 27.Rxf1 Rxf1)

(14.Qd5 0.00 (depth 25)  Ng4 15.Kd2 exf3 16.Nxb6 f2 17.Rh1 Rxb6 18.Kc2 Ne5 19.b3 Re8 20.Bd2 Qg6+ 21.Bd3 Nxd3 22.Qxd3 Qxg2 23.Qxd7 Qe4+ 24.Qd3 Qb7 25.Qd7 Qe4+)

I have nothing personal against the deluded old fart: I'm the one who sent him step by step instructions on how to set up Stockfish.  Then I tried to set up a group where others could analyze his games without discussions in the comments, and I got branded a trouble-maker for my troubles.

Has no bearing on the analysis of the craptastic Ponziani opening though.  Feel free to post your contributions if you have any, thanks.

I know so little about chess in fact that your new game is going right down the analysis line I posted.  Well played!

You're beginning to think he's a troll? FirebrandX (this sentence is satirical) now I see why people say you use your engine instead of your brain!

In all seriousness, though, blumzovich relies on Stockfish, which is known to be one of the worse analysis engines generally speaking, and does not know how to use modern databases. His 'contributions' to opening theory thus far have been negligible or negative, and he attacks others for no real reason, then gets surprised when people don't take him seriously. If this isn't a troll, I don't know what is.

FirebrandX, what do you think of the recent Ponziani games? Bluebird thinks 12.Qa6 leads to an equal game (although he claimed White had an advantage just two days ago) but I can't see it for the life of me, I would take Black any day. I guess we'll see how his game goes with ponz111.

Here's one of my negligible contributions to opening theory (actually there's an interesting back story: a) White's 8th move is given a !? with no analysis at all in Keene & Kasparov's BCO b) I worked out a forcing line and sent a question to Larry Evans on Chess, which he ultimately modified for usage in his "What's the Best Move" column, and c) as it turns out the position had been analyzed to the 12th move by Staunton in his "Chess Players Handbook"

Anyway, in the Ponziani/Fraser line under discussion, looks like White can hold on and not outright lose, by either 12. Qd5 c6 13. Qd2 e4 14. Nd4 e3 15. Qc2 or 12. Na3 e4  13. Nc4 Rab8  14. Qd5

Case closed.  Carry on.

This is a better ponziani discussion without spam.

I am also blocked for no reason. Well, that's good for me. I don't want to argue with someone who doesn't know how to argue. The sky is blue. Or maybe not. But it's there in the sky.

I guess blumzovich closed his account by own desire, as we still can see his posts.