Ponziani opening traps

#374 looks like black missed a quicker mate - 22... Rxg2+ ...

#374 is not very relevant as of course White should not play 4. exd5??

4. Qa4 is the only correct  move.  

not 4.d3?

In my opinion 4. d3 is not ok

Here is another line which I have not fully analyzed...

Philidor is a reliable defence.

White playing this defence tempo up is not ok?

Well well well...

Qa4 "provokes" f6 and so what?

a4 is not really a good square for the queen which could be harassed later.

Theory doesnt prefer white after Qa4, it claims at least equality for black as far as i know.

Moreover, black has good options on move 4 like Bd7, Nf6, Qd6...

Theory says the Ponziani is a draw with best play by both sides.

Theory says the Ruy Lopez is a draw with best play by both sides.

Theory says 1. c4 is a draw with best play by both sides.

  In the Ponziani after 3. c3  d5  4. Qa4 theory says it is a draw with best play by both sides but there are many interesting lines. White has lines vs 4. ... Bd7 or

4. ... Nf6 or 4....Qd6

Here is why after 3. c3  d5  4. d3 is a bad move for White in the Ponziani:

I know that in the line 3. c3  d5  4. Qa4  f6  5. d3  that the White queen is a little displaced. But it can move to c2 if needed. Black's pawn on f6 is also a little displaced but it is difficult to move that pawn. 

Of course you realize I have studied 3. ... d5 4. Qa4  Nf6 extensively!?

As an aside, who do you think would be the best FIDE president between Makropolous, Arkady, and Nigel Short?

In the game you gave 10. Qd1 is not the best move--it should completely equalize but that is all. Also White made other mistakes in that game.

Nakamura is not very skilled when it comes to playing the Ponziani as he is not up on current theory. I noticed in another game he lost by playing 3. c3  f5 4. d4 [and then made more mistakes] when clearly 3. c3  f5  4. exf5 is better and gives White some fun in the opening.

You need to realize that my book is out of date on some variations and is not the last word.  Chess theory always evolves higher after any opening book is published. Chess theory always evolves higher after any game is played.

The theory I have [made by myself with help of a computer] after 3. c3 d5 4.Qa4  Nf6 White can play a line where Black has to play a narrow game to keep from losing in the opening and White has a very  small edge up to more than the 21st move.

IM pfren thank you very much for those games and also the analysis.

 However did you ever consider ol ponz has looked at the lines with

9. Nd2  Bg4 and has his own analysis which may be quite a bit better than the analysis and games you gave?

 People are underestimating me all the time. I have weathered several challenges on various lines of play and various openings to date and with  always proving my point.

I am saying that after 9. Nd2  Bg4 White can play lines where Black has to tow the line to keep from getting a bad game and will still have a slight disadvantage way far into the opening [20 moves or more].

I am getting long in the tooth for this and my chess abilities have gone down but if any master disagrees with my statement above feel free to challenge me [via message] and we will play the opening. 

As an aside, I am looking at 7. d3  0-0  8. Be2  Re8 9. Bg5 and it seems at least playable!? I am not saying it is playable it is just that my [incomplete] analysis indicates it is playable--so one more thing Black would have to consider?  

No master or grandmaster will take me up on my challenge?

In a previous challenge a grandmaster did take me up on my offer!?

Once I am a GM I let you know....

Sorry but :

- as u could see, i don't see any GM (or very rarely) on this forum.

- if there was some GM, why would they spend time to check your evaluation of a rare guest in tournament? To do this, they would prefer to check alone, with a coach or a sparring partner they know.

- The same could be applied for IM and lower levels.

So don't be surprised...

Despite what you say here--a GM has already accepted one of my challenges in the past and we played a whole game!?

And also despite your earlier claim that it is uncertain that the move 4. Bb5 in the Ponziani is a draw or a loss--my analysis was an upgrade to the analysis you gave and my analysis indicated that 4. Bb5 is indeed a losing move with best play for both sides.

Also per your claim that a GM would prefer to use a coach or sparring partner to check lines in the Ponziani how can you explain supergrandmasters playing severe mistakes in the opening of the Ponziani because they apparently had not checked out the lines? [ or they apparently had not checked out crucial Ponziani opening lines with a coach or sparring partner?]

i never said Bb5 was a good move.

I almost think like u that it is a bad move and maybe losing by force, but i just reacted on your arrogance when u told u could beat anyone as black in this variation.

We see some GM playing 1.h4 2.h5 online crushing their opponents...

Theorical status is a thing, but practical chess is another thing.

I gave some analysis giving a line where black is clearly better, but where the win is far from obvious.

I didnt see your improvments on it...

Anyway, why keep bring up this Bb5 line?

Nobody claimed u were wrong.

The problem is only your arrogance and your self importance.

U know Ponziani much than anyone here or on earth?

Fine, and so what? What do u want? Compliments? More guys buying your book?

You gave incorrect analysis of that Ponziani line and I suggested you were wrong and offered to play the line out with you and you arrogantly said ok if I would pay you for "lessons" 

I do not need "lessons" from you. You analysis did not see an important resource for Black which would change the evaluation from maybe a draw or maybe a loss to actually a loss.

It was not "arrogance" when I said the line was so bad that I could beat any master or grandmaster who would play that line against me. What it was--was good analysis on my part and I have proven my point.

And, no, I am not afraid to play that line against grandmasters or even supergrandmasters. And if you call that "arrogance" you are simply wrong.

I have challenged the best players I could find on chess.com before on several different occasions and on several different lines and have prevailed--maybe that is why I am so confident?

And please tell me why you think it is wrong to be so confident? My results on my challenges make me confident--beating experts and masters and even beating the one grandmaster who took up my challenge. 

You should be complimenting me on my willingness to take up and study and play certain opening lines against strong opposition rather than  disparaging me...

It would be nice if others could or would take up such challenges and it is probably entertaining for those who watch!?