looking on 365chess.com at this line, it does not even recommend the Nge7 move, likely because Black does not get a good target at e4 with this move.
Believe it or not, Black's replies from this position in post #214 shows the following replies:
4... f6, 4...Bd7, 4... dxe4, 4... Qd6, 4... Nf6, 4... Qd7 and 4... a6 in order of most frequently played irrespective of winning percentages for either side. Of the 7 replies, only 4... a6 leaves book lines at this point with Hlavcek-Pecina 0-1 where Black has a Rook for 2 pawns at the end of the game.
The 4... f6 line goes:
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. c3 d5 4. Qa4 f6 5. Bb5 Nge7 6. exd5 Qxd5
and now White has 2 replies to take here: 7. d4 and 7. 0-0 (this is listed as the Steinitz variation at this point).
Looking at 7. d4 first, we get:
7. d4 Bd7 8. Be3 exd4 9. cxd4 Ne5 10. Nc3 Nxf3 11. gxf3 Qf5 12. O-O-O a6 13. d5
And here both moves, 13... Bxb5 and 13... 0-0-0 show as losing for Black
Looking at 7. 0-0 our line is:
7. O-O Bd7 8. d4 e4 9. Nfd2 f5 10. Bc4 Qd6 11. Qc2 Nd5
and whether White plays 12. Re1 or 12. Nb3, he is still holding all the trumps.
Of interest to note is that on move 10, if White plays 10. Na3, the game was won by Black but if White plays instead 10. Nb3, you get a winning position from one of Alekhine's games here.
Ponz does have some interesting ideas to look over here but with 7 moves available by move 4 for Black in this line, there appear to be plenty of ways to go wrong here for the defender. Will check some more lines here and at chesslab.com and see how the two DB's compare on this line.
Why I think there will not be a refutation to the Ponziani that holds up.
To me, with best play for both sides--chess is a draw. To lose a game you have to make a mistake--this is key in my thinking.
I have studied the Ponziani for years and wrote two books on the Ponziani.
[one co-authored with Keith Hayward]
There are, of course, millions of lines, but, so far, I have been able to
come up with the normal first move advantage in all lines I have investigated. [and of course in some lines much more]
The Ponziani gives reasonable moves as a starter. I do not think anyone who understands the Ponziani can say the whole opening is a mistake.
Thus the Ponziani cannot be refuted. That is per my sense of logic. Why should it be when White really has not made a mistake. Also, why should it be refuted by either one or two lines when thousands of lines "work" for this opening"
Now in real life, I noticed the two possible refutations to the Ponziani even before the possible refuttions came out. So I HAD to have a response--there HAD to be a good reply to these two refutations--maybe even something no one has looked at before!
As in my favorite TV show of all time.."We will go where no one has gone before"
If one of these lines comes up in Vote chess--it will be tested. I have had one of the lines come up in my 15 minute games as I won that particular game. [my 15 minute play is not so good at all]
I keep thinking of this senario--someone knows how to counter the 2 refutations and is playing correspondence chess and he plays the Ponz and his opponent goes for one of the refutations as after all " stastics show the Ponziani is a losing opening". Almost wish I was able to play correspondence again--just for that senario!