I don't think you understand the idea behind using an 'unusual opening'. In the Ponziani 3 c3 is clearly not the 'best move' to play in that position but it throws opponents (including GMs). If you have a lot of knowledge playing the Ponziani then this is a huge advantage. If black plays 'perfectly' after then they will get at least a draw. Of course, who plays perfect Chess? Even the top Grandmasters don't do that.
And remember if Black plays perfectly after any reasonable opening hewill get a draw.
There is abolutely no opening for White in chess that Black cannot get a draw with perfect chess.
Actually, theoretically the 3rd move 3. c3 is just as good as 3. Bb5 [Ruy Lopez] or any other sound opening as the result with best play for both sides is a draw.
With the Ruy Lopez while it is considered maybe THE top opening after 1. e4 e5 if you want to play the Ruy there are a ton of variations which can be thrown at you and this could require years of analysis.
The Ponziani is far better than many people who have not studied the Ponziani to any depth will say.
According to my engine after 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6
3 Bb5 (best) scores +0.18
3 c3 (6th) scores -0.17
but that's not the point is it...you may lose 0.35 if you play c3 instead of Bb5 but with superior knowledge in the upcoming positions, that will be made back soon enough.
DJ besides that--your engine is simply wrong. you do not lose .35 by playing 3. c3. If you did--you would be sure I would never play or suggest the Ponziani Opening.
I play the Ponziani. We can settle this (or start this) over the board.
Oh yay a Vote chess game just finished where Black plays the inferior 4...d6. Nice way to keep bumping this thread about an opening that throws away White's advantage to the top. If I wanted to do this (throw away White's advantage), I could do so a move earlier than the Ponziani with 2. d4. I could start a thread about a novelty I devised as early as move 5 in the Center game: 2. d4 exd4 3. Qxd4 Nc6 4. Qc4 Nf6 5. a3.
Completely equal if not slightly worse for White you say. Oh I beg to differ -- and differ I will in that thread every 2 or 3 days, after the thread falls off the front page of the Openings discussion forum.
Please, give it a break.
Give up Jempy. Ponz is deaf to any reasonable arguments (like most unorthodox opening maniacs). Any arguing will give him only the reason to repeat his "Ponziani is good opening" mantras like a parrot. Its much better to ignore him, leaving him in his imaginary world.
P.S. Hope it`ll be my last post in this thread.
I hope it will be your last post as well!
Of course it was played by the highest rated player in the world, and the former women's world champion within a week.
From my own research, the Ponziani is only weak if black is fully booked out and ready for it. Beyond that, it's just as playable as any other average opening like the Colle or Nimzo-Larsen.
Firebrand from my own research the Ponziani is not weak even if Black is booked up.
Of course we have the question--what does "booked up" mean in an opening not played much..
Certainly if you go to the data bases you will not find the best moves...
The Ponziani makes people wish they had studied. For me personally, the Ruy makes black respond to more threats than the Ponziani. The problem is black is fully capable and prepared to respond to those threats and create threats of his own.
The Ponziani does not throw away an adavantage like say the Exchange variation of the French. It does not create as many problems as other choices, or at least it does not create as many obvious problems.
Anand's game against Aronian, refuted a main line played by super GM's all the time.
No one is playing the Petroff for a win. Yet it's a mainstream response to 1.e4
The Ponziani is an opening which can be equalized by a prepared player, just like every other opening.
I just finished a game where Black played database moves found himself crushed.
Ponziani Opening ? If that's an Italian restaurant, when is it opening?
Sorry chaps, I'm a bit bored today. ;)
Irrelevant. I don't know any Ponziani theory and won my only game against it with mate in 13 moves (even missing that I could win a rook a move earlier). Not related to the opening.
You and I already debated this before, and you admitted defeat when we reached the end of the best line I chose from theory. Do I need to dig those posts back up?
I was commenting on something written in the thread.
In any case, I was confirming that following moves from the Master database is not always a good idea. I was not saying I played someone who did not know what they were doing and mated them in 13 moves.
Firebrand we were looking at a move in the ponziani which is not recommended . I actually got it mixed up with another similar line.
I looked at your line and after examining your line I concluded it was a good and winning line for Black. But it is not a line that we would play in a real game. It is my fault that I confused your line with another line. But the point is your line while it wins would not be played by someone who knows Ponziani Theory. Because I tell you that I agree that your line wins--this is not "admitting defeat" it is just saying that you are correct if that particular move is played in the Ponziani then White should lose.
Just as if in this line 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. c3 d5 and now White plays 4. Bb5? White should lose with the correct follow ups by Black but of course there are other lines than 4. Bb5.
I remember quite a few years ago the Center Counter with 1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 was considered by most as a rather bad opening.
It is, and sorry for that. It's just that at class level it works because whites don't know the way to bust it (which is admittedly complex).
But the opening is secondrate (although certainly better than the "active" 2...Nf6 which is a sure way to shoot your own foot).
3...Qd6 is slightly better, but quite passive.
I believe @Ponz111 used that line as his "workhorse variation" to win the U.S. Correspondence Championship.
I conjecture he might have something to say about your comment, IM @Pfern.
Oh, I see you left out most of his comment regarding same in post #367. Neat trick.
Do you play 3-Card-Monty in Washington Square Park, as well?
If it takes GM skill to break down specific mainline openings, So What.
Those openings are still good for the other 99 percent of players. No doubt about it.