Ponziani: Impractical in non-computer Correspondence Chess?

here I had black:

There you have it, two 4. d3 games with white scoring 1 1/2 points.  Based on these games which took place prior to the VC game that we lost, we tried 4. d3.

And yes we lost to a phenominal 96% T3 match rate opponent.

You know your reasoning is flawed.  Just because you found a couple of games where White played 4. d3 and scored 1 1/2-1/2 does not make your 4. d3? a good move.  It is a bad move.

Heck, one could find a couple of games where just about any bad move  in the early opening which resulted in a plus score for two games.

Heck, I can find a game played by two supergrandmasters who both blundered terribly on the 4th move.  Just because someone plays a bad move does not magically turn it into a good move.

We did not conclude 4. d3 was a good move... you are making that up (strawman).  You said you hardly know a person who could have survived after the 4. d3 d5 sequence... so I gave an example.

I said we we played 4. d3 in search for an alternative.  Not because we believed in it.  Our hope was to use one of my two recent games as guidance.  But our phenominal opponents destroyed easily with precise 96% T3 match moves. 

Sorry, I thought since you played that move because you thought it was ok.

Why would you play alternatives that are obviously bad moves?

I do not have my own book with me right now but am guessing I might not have even mentioned 4. d3? in my book?

Or if I did, I many have mentioned it is a bad move. 

Are we taking about why anyone would play the Ponziani in the first place? 

Yes you did.  You claimed equality if I am not mistaken.  But you can change your mind.

Ok i should take popcorn, this is becoming awesome.

By the way, any form of refutation of the attack from white by giving back the piece?

The piece(s) will be taken back not given.

Well, I am unable to find that in my book. What page?

LOL  nice Attic salt!

Usually not, but sometimes.  Depends on the exact variation.

Page 131, right column.

"c) 4.d3 is not really in the spirit of the Ponziani..."

There is no assessment of equality or advantage for either side.

And yet, 4.d3 is the main idea that top GMs are using when they play Ponziani move orders. They're trying to get to quiet Spanish types of games via a different move order. 

I do not care if some top GMs have played 4. d3, it is still a bad move.

In my book, I never mentioned 4. d3 except in a negative way.

Top GMs who play 4. d3 will not get to any type of quiet Spanish types of games via a different move order after the reply 4. .... d5!

As mentioned before at higher levels of chess one should NOT GO only by what top GMs have played as they can make mistakes just like everybody else.

Even super GMs make mistakes.

Heck, even Super GMs playing each other in a game--both can make losing and stupid moves by the 4th move.  By this I mean one Super GM is losing by the 4th move and the Super GM he is playing against has a win by the 4th move but does not see it.

Previously, you argued that Ponziani is not a bad move because it does not give Black the better game. You argued that since white cannot win, any move that does not lose in the opening isn't really bad. 

So, by that logic, you believe that 4.d3 is a losing move, or at the very least one that gives Black an advantage. 

I'm not suggesting that 4.d3 is a good move in the sense that it gives white a theoretical edge. I don't believe White has a theoretical edge in the Ponziani in the first place. The reason to play the Ponziani is that it gives practical chances. For precisely that reason, I don't see anything particularly wrong with 4.d3.

Here's a blitz game some fish played using 4.d3. As you can see, he generated plenty of practical chances. 

I have looked, and not found a refutation to 4.d3. If you have it, please share it with us.

All I'm saying guys is that a morbidly obese man can win a marathon if all the other participants have heart attacks and die... that's all I'm saying.  Super GMs fuck up all the time.  Read about it in my book where 4.d3 is shown to be a dumb move by dumb players who are about to lose to a fat sweaty man in spandex.

The entirety of Ponz's analysis of 4.d3 in his book can be found on Amazon as follows:

1. Sign into amazon.com (it won't let you search otherwise)
2. Go to http://www.amazon.com/Play-Ponziani-Everyman-Chess-Taylor/dp/1857446208
3. Click "Look inside"
4. Search for "Dabic"

This will bring you to pages 131-132, where three paragraphs, (c), (c1), and (c2) deal with that move.

There is no "refutation" to 4. d3 but it is still a bad move.

Nobody can give a zillion variations after 4. d3  d5 to show Black wins.

In fact with best play by both sides Black probably does not win.

  Heck, White can open 1. h3 which is a bad move but does not lose with perfect play by  both sides.

What I am saying is 4. d3 is a bad move because if Black plays correctly and normally it is very hard for White to hold the game to a draw and in practical play 4. d3 will get much worse results then the normal and better 4. d4. 

 I have severe health problems and did not remember what was in my own book but thanks to LegoPirateSenior he found the relevant pages with this example variation: