I would need to spend more time analyzing it but I was looking at 12. Bc2 d5 13. Nd2!? (spending a couple tempi to replace the knight on f3), and I think that white should at least be maintaining his first move advantage.
I wish I had more time to spend analyzing this, but sadly between the fact that I always play 1.d4 and that I'm having trouble finding an advantage against 3...d5 that I spend most of my time on other openings more relevant to my current chess progress.
Sadly the only game that Nxd5 was played in was only between an expert and someone even lower, and it continued with the immediate 10. Bxg6, so I don't have a great wealth of games to work with either .
If you play 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 it is not the Ponziani. There is nothing wrong with 3. d4 [I even beat a grandmaster with that line] but it is just a different openings with different ideas.
If you play 3. d4 you will not be able to set up a pawn center with d4 and e4 as Black will probably play 3. d4 exd4.
Wikipedia and How to tear down a perfectly good chess opening. Here are some quotes:
"The Ponziani is rarely played today except as a surprise weapon, because Black has the pleasant choice between equalizing easily and attempting to obtain an advantage with sharper play." [this is simply not true]
"White's third move prepares to build a powerful pawn center with 4. d4, a logical objective also seen the the more popular Ruy Lopez and Giuoco Piano. However 3. c3 is somewhat premature because the move 1. takes away the more natural square for White's queen knight [note-so does the Ruy Lopez!] 2. temporarily creates a hole on d3 [note what a stupid remark the so called "hole" is only there usually for one move] 3. develops a pawn rather than a piece leaving White behind in development [another rather stupid remark 1. e4 d6 2. d4 and White has developed 2 pawns without moving a piece--is White behind in development?] and not well placed to meet a counter attack in the center" [ if 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. c3 d5--counter attack in the center White can play 4. Qa4 this is possible because the diagonal d1 c2 b3 4 a4 is open]
"As early as 1904. Marshall wrote that, "There is no point in White's third move unless Black plays badly...White practically surrenders the privilege of the first move."
Marshall in 1904 had no knowledge of modern theory after the year 2000.
For Wikipedia to take a stupid quote of over 100 years ago to describe an opening is beyond the pale...
Again from Wikipedia "More recently, Graham Burgess. called the Ponziani "a relic from a bygone age"
Then in this variation 1. e4 e5 2. NF3 Nc6 3. c3 Nge7 Wikipedia says that this is the Kmoch Variation and then goes on to say the Black equalizes after
While that line may equalize it is apparent that 4. d4 is a very bad reply to 3. c3 Nge7. 4. Bc4 is the more natural response and current theory does not show Black equalizing. Also White could play 4. Bb5.
One problem is there are many parrots repeating this stuff and they think what they have read is true...
At the bottom of the page is a "contact us" button with a box to check that you are highly knowledgeable about this subject. I would say using the opening to win a US Correspondence Championship lends credence.
Yes, I noticed that on Wikipedia I can use that button and have and even have added a little bit. But the problem is there are statements that are absolutely false and there are other statements which are prejudiced and also very stupid--but they will not let me challenge those statements and they will not delete either.
Here is a game with 7. Nc4 as per the above diagram:
shepi. that is an interesting line but I think it goes into equal chances
after . 11. Bxg6 Nf6 12. Bd3 d5 13. Bf4
I would need to spend more time analyzing it but I was looking at 12. Bc2 d5 13. Nd2!? (spending a couple tempi to replace the knight on f3), and I think that white should at least be maintaining his first move advantage.
I wish I had more time to spend analyzing this, but sadly between the fact that I always play 1.d4 and that I'm having trouble finding an advantage against 3...d5 that I spend most of my time on other openings more relevant to my current chess progress.
Sadly the only game that Nxd5 was played in was only between an expert and someone even lower, and it continued with the immediate 10. Bxg6, so I don't have a great wealth of games to work with either![Frown]( "Frown")
.
Can't you just play d4 like the Scotch Opening?
If you play 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 it is not the Ponziani. There is nothing wrong with 3. d4 [I even beat a grandmaster with that line] but it is just a different openings with different ideas.
If you play 3. d4 you will not be able to set up a pawn center with d4 and e4 as Black will probably play 3. d4 exd4.
Wikipedia and How to tear down a perfectly good chess opening. Here are some quotes:
"The Ponziani is rarely played today except as a surprise weapon, because Black has the pleasant choice between equalizing easily and attempting to obtain an advantage with sharper play." [this is simply not true]
"White's third move prepares to build a powerful pawn center with 4. d4, a logical objective also seen the the more popular Ruy Lopez and Giuoco Piano. However 3. c3 is somewhat premature because the move 1. takes away the more natural square for White's queen knight [note-so does the Ruy Lopez!] 2. temporarily creates a hole on d3 [note what a stupid remark the so called "hole" is only there usually for one move] 3. develops a pawn rather than a piece leaving White behind in development [another rather stupid remark 1. e4 d6 2. d4 and White has developed 2 pawns without moving a piece--is White behind in development?] and not well placed to meet a counter attack in the center" [ if 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. c3 d5--counter attack in the center White can play 4. Qa4 this is possible because the diagonal d1 c2 b3 4 a4 is open]
"As early as 1904. Marshall wrote that, "There is no point in White's third move unless Black plays badly...White practically surrenders the privilege of the first move."
Marshall in 1904 had no knowledge of modern theory after the year 2000.
For Wikipedia to take a stupid quote of over 100 years ago to describe an opening is beyond the pale...
Again from Wikipedia "More recently, Graham Burgess. called the Ponziani "a relic from a bygone age"
Then in this variation 1. e4 e5 2. NF3 Nc6 3. c3 Nge7 Wikipedia says that this is the Kmoch Variation and then goes on to say the Black equalizes after
4. d4 exd4 5. Bc4 d5 6. exd5 Nxd5 7. 0-0 Be7 8. Nxd4 Nxd4 9. cxd4 Be6."
While that line may equalize it is apparent that 4. d4 is a very bad reply to 3. c3 Nge7. 4. Bc4 is the more natural response and current theory does not show Black equalizing. Also White could play 4. Bb5.
One problem is there are many parrots repeating this stuff and they think what they have read is true...![Frown]( "Frown")
At the bottom of the page is a "contact us" button with a box to check that you are highly knowledgeable about this subject. I would say using the opening to win a US Correspondence Championship lends credence.
Yes, I noticed that on Wikipedia I can use that button and have and even have added a little bit. But the problem is there are statements that are absolutely false and there are other statements which are prejudiced and also very stupid--but they will not let me challenge those statements and they will not delete either.
They are very understaffed, I'm sure they will eventually get around to correcting the mistake. But don't hold your breath, huh?
One problem, I am sure is they do not know much about chess and in particular do not know much about the Ponziani Opening .
Don't expect too much, they are all bean counters.
Ok, I won't hold my breath.
There are many White follow ups after these moves which some consider the main line of the Ponziani
7. Bd3 seems particularly sneaky
ponz111 wrote:
There are many White follow ups after these moves which some consider the main line of the Ponziani
9. Qe2, not Kxf2.