Ponziani opening traps

After seeing this game, I am feeling deep sympathies for Alekh. Poor GM got creamed like a patzer. Never saw it coming.

p.s. I didn't know Alekh ever lost a game in 20 moves (notice that in this game black is clearly in lost position by move 20 although he dragged for a while).

Learning (and much more so, teaching) trappy openings is the wrong (very wrong!) way to chess development.

Quoting GM and FIDE Senior Trainer Adrian Mikhalchisin:

"Usually, quasi-trainers know themselves one and a half openings and teach every single student in the same way. Another typical mistake is to teach trappy openings. And sometimes well-known trainers also make different mistakes; for instance in one certain country all juniors play "The French Defence"!

Not good enough

If I were teaching how to play the Ponziani, I would start with the main variations, the most often seen variations...

Then, I would focus on Ponziani games which focused on positional play.

However, The Ponziani is a unique opening in that it is fundamentally sound and inherit in it are many traps or ways for Black to go wrong. So, I would also teach traps as well as positional play.

There is no one perfect way to teach openings as each opening is unique.

Many "trappy openings" are unsound. Thus some people do say not to teach "trappy openings"  However the Ponziani is an exception because not only is it "trappy" it is also sound.   

Those players who decide to really study the Ponziani for about a year will be rewarded. There is a lot of theory behind the Ponziani but it is only about 1/10th the theory of the Ruy Lopez. 

One good thing about the Ponziani is that it has been trashed unfairly for decades. Thus opponents are often not prepared and often get a rather bad game quickly.

If you wish to be a good Ponziani player, it is a mistake just to learn the opening traps.  You must know the most often played variations and how to play the Ponziani positionally.

Here is an example of a positional game:

David Taylor  Roger Peeples   1980 correspondence

here is another Ponziani positional game:

M. Euwe   P. Van Hoorn  Amsterdam 1927\

Here is another example of a positional Ponziani game.

David Taylor  vs computer M.ChessPro  1998

Ponz, in your game against ChessPro 5..Ne7 was a mistake. What if black played Bc5? I studied a bit that variation and white would have trouble after his f2 pawn is lost and rook is in danger.

 There are already a few thousand posts about 5...Bc5 in chess.com.

You refer to the Fraser variation. 5. ...Ne7 is NOT a mistake.

After 5. ... Bc5 the game can get very complicated. Maybe more so than any variation I have ever seen. If White knows the theory then it will be only White who has the winning chances. Black has to successfully navigate through maybe 20 moves of theory to get to an equal position.

The Ponziani, Ruy Lopez, Queens Gambit, Two Knights, Four Knights, English Opening etc etc etc are a draw with best play by both sides.

A good Ponziani player will have quite good chances vs the Fraser.

Yes, there are many posts in chess.com about that variation.

Ponz, 5..Ne7 may not be a huge mistake but it is worst than Bc5.

Now, it would take computer analyses to see who is better in Fraser.

It is not worse than the Fraser. I have studied the Fraser very extensively and know that 5. ...Ne7 is not worse than the Fraser.

Tell me, have you spent days and weeks and months studying the Fraser, so you know more about the Fraser than I do?

5. ...Ne7 is not a mistake at all. Have you spent years studying 5. ...Ne7 as I have and thus you believe 5. ...Ne7 is a "mistake"? 

Ponz, you blocked me on Ponz powerful puzzles topic which is very immature from you. If you haven't you may even get my answer to that.

And about this topic the answer is similar - run that game of yours through Stockfish 6 and you'l see the evaluation. You don't have to trust me neither here or on the other topic. Stockfish 6 is a free engine.

TrumanB

I do not have Stockfish 6. Not to mention that chess engines which are run for a short time, without human help, cannot and do not give correct evaluations of a variation so complicated as the Fraser. I repeat that the Fraser is the most complicated variation of an opening that I have ever run accross.

Players who run a  opening variation  for a relatively short time, [hours] will not get correct evaluations on some very complicated lines.

The chess engines are not G-d. However a chess engine with help of a very strong human is better than a chess engine alone.

Yes, I have used a chess engine to study and evaluate the Fraser but I spent weeks and months studying that line [the chess engine had the help of a very strong human] and find that if White knows the current theory, it is Black who must find the very best moves for up to 20 moves or more to get to a drawish position. If Black cannot find the best moves, he will end up in a losing position.

It is not likely that players who wish to respond 1. ... e4 will be ready for both the Ponziani and the Fraser variation against a Ponziani player who knows the theory.

Truman, the Fraser is very difficult to play OTB.  You probably would do ok playing the white side of it OTB.  IN correspondence and Centaur chess... much more difficult.

I find the Black side of the Fraser easier to play, but in any case I do not like playing irrational positions in OTB chess. As white I couldn't avoid it, but as Black I do have other, promising options.

Centaur is another story.

You are an IM, Truma and myself...not so much.  Proving that position down two pieces would be very difficult.

For the vast majority of players, they will see and play the most common variations of the Ponziani. 3. c3 Nf6  3. c3 d5  3. c3 f5  3. c3 d6

You could go a year without seeing the very complicated Fraser.

prefact games!