Ponziani Opening

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. 

.  

I'm glad Chess is only a one on one game.  

Ponziani is a cool opening, probably would play it if there weren't so many people playing the french, boring stuff.

Firebrandx I think you are assuming that the two players [good as they are] have found the best moves. Or that one has found a good line vs the ponziani. Did you ever think that there may be lines that neither saw which are very playable for White.?  Because a line or game is on a data base and because two very good players played the line-- and because the game was played ten moves for 50 days, and because they had the help of chess engines---  does not mean that they didn't miss a whole lot. 

I have a correspondence data base and have noticed there are a whole lot of players on many current lines playing much inferior moves. The data base helps me to follow what currently may be playing but does not help me in finding the optimum moves because invariably the players do not find the best or optimum moves.   

this really seems to be going back and forth

>person 1 produces sample game
>person 2 claims they played poorly

Surely it is easier if person 2 provides the line with best play up to say move 20, and person 1 (who believes black is better or equal) gives improvements if the line shows that white is better at the end.

That won't happen.  I know Firebrand is a strong player.  I personally take his analysis seriously because I plan on using this line over the board.  I am currently analyzing his recent line with other enthusiasts.  The problem is that none of us (Firebrand included) did not participate in that game and do not know why some of the moves were played (10 moves 50 days engines on). 

Those conditions have little to do with my chess world.  What I mean is Carlsen would defeat almost anyone in the world with either side of that game starting at move 10. 

That means the opening is sound for over the board chess!