Ponziani: Impractical in non-computer Correspondence Chess?

So IOW, the Ponziani is busted.

Well, i win most of my games with white also.

The line Kantifields won in #247 White made a major error. 

In the Fraser there are some exact sequences and if either White or Black misses the exact sequence then he will probably lose.

There are plenty of chances for either side to go wrong if someone wishes to play the Fraser.

Speaking of  rivals...

I have not had a rival since superman died.

I can only remember one game where I lost playing the White side of the Ponziani in a serious game and that was  approximately 1975 when some new theory was developing. 

A booked up Ponziani player should experience good results.

There are about ten times less to learn for the Ponziani than if you wish to learn how to play the Ruy Lopez.

I also made serious errors throughout the game.  Even at thee end.  I saw the beginning of the best win, but could not figure it out all the way through.

Ponz, remember you are seeing serious errors through the eyes of a computer.  Without a computer, figuring out how to punish errors while being down two pieces is not so easy.  

My own OTB experience with the ponziani convinced me its NOT a good choice for white in OTB play.  At first I did well with it because my opponents were surprised and not prepared for it , they knew no theory and were pretty much on their own after the first half dozen moves .  Soon though they came prepared and then I was consistently reaching middlegames where I had no advantage at all and this wasnt the case with the Ruy .  I cannot imagine white doing very well in modern correspondence play with it either since computers are used now more often than not . 

imo any chess players who use computer during the correspondence is not a chess player.

ICCF allows computer use so if a player doesnt use a computer he is likely to lose every game these days . ICCF at least was smart enough to know they wouldnt be able to stop people from using them so they just allow them , other correspondence groups also allow them and those that do not can NOT stop everyone from using them . 

sad.

I know I'm hopping on the conversation late, and I skipped reading almost the entire thread, but I wanted to put in my two cents worth about the Ponziani.

In the local club where I used to play before I moved, most of the club was adult players in the 1300-2000 USCF range. One of our best players was rated around 1900 back when I was rated in the 1500s. I had never beaten him before. He played the Ponz against me when I had black in a G/75 game. I had never faced it before, got out of book by move 4 or 5, and went on to beat him for the first time ever.

In a blitz tourney a couple of weeks later, he played it against me again, and I was better prepared this time, because I'd looked it up after our first meeting. I won again, despite the fact that I really suck at blitz compared to other players around my level in slow play.

He played it against me one more time in a slow game. That one ended in a draw. He stopped playing that opening shortly after that.

This is a guy I've played more than almost any other opponent in USCF tournies, probably close to 20 slow tourney games plus the occasional blitz and skittles. I have never beaten him in any other opening, as black or white. In fact, I've only ever had one other game against him where I didn't lose - a draw as white.

I've never seen an opening have such a profound impact on a player's results as the Ponz had on bringing that guy down to my level. I will never play it as white.

Fromper  What makes you think your opponent knew how to play the Ponziani well?  How did you get out of book at move 4 or 5? What exactly did you play at move 4 or 5?

I don't have all the details in front of me, but from memory (years later at this point), I played 3. ... d5 and didn't expect the 4. Qa4 that he played, which is apparently book. I improvised badly from there, but just barely well enough to keep from losing any material.

I don't know if he was an expert on every line of the opening, but as I said, I was improvising relatively badly from move 4 or 5, so book study doesn't really help there. And I'm pretty sure he at least knew the basic book lines - he played it regularly for a while at our local club, and caught one or two people off guard at first.

Many players play the Ponziani without knowing the book lines.

So after 3. c3  d5  4. Qa4 you do not know what you played but you managed not to lose material.  The question is who had the better game after 4. Qa4 and your response and you are not really giving it here. 

Yes, there is a lot of theory to the Fraser Defense and not just to draw, either side could win or lose or draw.

However there are many Ruy Lopez variations and if you play the Ruy Lopez you must know all of them. 

 The Ruy Lopez is far more complex than the Ponziani. My estimate is ten times as much theory in the Ruy Lopez as compared to the Ponziani.

In fact, that is one reason some players play the Ponziani as it requires so much less theory than the Ruy Lopez. 

It's true, we are a lazy bunch 

Yes, the Spanish is far more complex than the Ponziani, but you do not have to learn all of it to play it well. 

Today's elites use d3 Spanish lines to avoid most of the theory. That's a very viable option for anyone who wants to play the Spanish and yet not learn reams of theory. 

Could you elaborate on what you mean by d3 Spanish lines?

Like this:

Of course, White can play d3 later in the move order too.

SmyslovFan   Can't Black play the Berlin Defense? 

1. e4  e5  2. Nf3  Nc6  3. Bb5  Nf6

Thanks @SmyslovFan, I thought that was what you meant.

Neil McDonald covers those d3 lines well in his book 'The Ruy Lopez Move by Move'.