While I don't think the Ponziani is "bad " I do believe white has 3 moves at move 3 that are all better : Bb5, Bc4 and d4 . I have checked several data bases and the Ponziani scores about 53% for white which is respectable . My own personal experience with the Ponziani is that I did well with it for the better part of a year until my otb opponents started coming to the board prepared to meet it and then my results dropped off significantly and I went back to 3 Bb5 . I think black has 2 very good lines : 3 ... d5 4 Qa4 and now both 4 ... Bd7 and f6 are fine for black imo and according to database results I have checked . Is there something better for white at move 4 ? If not then 3 ... d5 is the way to go for black .
Ponziani Opening
Sort:
Yes, In the line you gave I was certain my possible moves against that particular line were the best White could do. And I said that the particular line was not good for White and even losing.
But it was a line that is not suggested to play in Ponziani theory. So while it would be a good line for Black if White plays into it--White does not have to play into it at all. [I think it was a d3 line--I would appreciate it if you will give the exact line as at the time I got it confused with I think another d3 line]
We do not need to hash the line out again as I already agreed with you that the particular line was very bad for White. It is just that the line would not be played by someone with good Ponziani theory and there are better moves other than playing that particular line. I do confess getting that line mixed up with another line. So I am asking you to give the particular line again but if I remember it was not a line in Ponziani theory that I have. But if you think you have something and there is no other line please give it again...
I see a lot of hand waving in this thread. Is there any concrete analysis you're actually willing to share, or is it all proprietary?
If I could remember the exact line it would help. Please give the exact line as making comments about it makes little sense if we do not know the line. I kinda remember it is a d6 line for White sometime after 3. c3 d5
4. Qa4 f6
I think 7.0-0 not best. 7. d4 is the move you need to show puts white at a disadvantage. I think we agree 7. 0-0 puts white in trouble.
A 44 move game probably does not reflect on the quality of the opening, especially as it ends in resignation.
I agree the ...f6, ...Kf7 line is a tough nut to crack. But I am sure you are not claimimg white made the best moves at his disposal. For example giving up the second bishop.
Ponziani is a cool opening. Where can I but this book. I know someone who would like to read it.
Probably on Amazon. authors David Taylor and Keith Hayward
I was not challenging you ponz, but Jempty as to his success with his opening.
But it is moot as I went and looked at all his games to last June and he hasn't played this opening once. But he DOES like to get that Queen out early!
What was the venue FirebrandX?
Firebrand, in the book I co authored on page 160 it advised NOT to play
6. d3 after 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. c3 d5 4. Qa4 f6 5. Bb5 Ne7
So. while I agreed with you that a line you gave after 6. d3 was very good for Black--this has very little to do with Ponziani theory as you were refuting or giving a refutation to a line which was already in the book as a bad move to avoid.
Firebrand, that does not even sound like chess as i want to know it! What is computer assisted chess? Is it like walking with a cane, or having a friend driving you everywhere you want to go?
Thank you, FirebrandX, for providing a game to get the conversation started. It seems that the other side would rather make fun of the game than continue the conversation though.
Where did White make his mistake that led from the standard += to =?
There were several places along the way where White could do better.
This is one of two published "refutations" to the Ponziani and I have been studying this particular variation but I have more study left as the variations can get very complex. When someone plays the line against us at vote chess I will use what I have so far. [I have more than one possible answer]
The other published "refutation" to the Ponziani is already covered and taken care of in Play the Ponziani.
Sorry I took the pot shot Firebrand. It was not cool.
Correspondence Chess with the aid of a chess engine has its place.
There are skills envolved.
I just do not know what chess engines mean. Databases? Computer analysis? I am simply ignorant here.
A database has millions (mine has 4.5 mil) of games and works like Chess.com's Game Explorer.
An engine can only analyze from one place in a game, but mine will do 3 variations. You can only trust it for a few moves since the variables in chess are so vast. The engine has changed the way we play chess and so many engine variations are in everyday play and in the databases now they can hardly be separated anymore.
My database came with ChessKingPro, (don't buy it), but often ends the suggestions after 10 moves or so.
There are ChessBase engines with many more games and up to date within a few months. But the MegaBase costs $354.95. It is pretty amazing all the stuff it can do. It uses an online database of 5 million games which are the most current. I'd have it if I could afford it.
.
This is soooo cool :D
I have been an exponent of the Ponziani for many years and started with Harding's book on the Ponziani (which is pretty hard to get). I have found that I can generally outplay most others in the opening on chess.com because very, very few players will play 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. c3 d5. Rather, they almost invariable play the Steinitz variation or something like that which I believe is better for white.
I bought your book on the Ponziani last year and I think its a fabulous work. It has certainly scored me some points in online games, where the chess.com opening explorer has holes. There is no question that those holes exist, which is really more about the fact that the Ponziani isn't played much at the master level than it is about the opening itself.
I asked postal master Lou Owen years ago if the opening was viable despite OTB GMs not playing it. He said that it was absolutely viable and probably playable to a high level. There are indeed issues with not being able to develop the knight to its usual c3 square but every opening has it's weaknesses.
Anyway, great book and I'm glad you are on here :)