Ponziani Opening

Fear, the problem is this particilar line is one of two "refutations" to the Ponziani and the theory is very complex and will not be settled here on this forum at this time.

99% of the lines, sure I can and have given lines and counter lines. But this  particular variation is so complex that a book could be written just on this line. It may come up in a vote chess game or some other venue and if it is vote chess will use what I have. But until I can complete the theory pertaining to this line--No use going into this particular line futher, If someone wants to express their views fine . 

It would be nice if Ponz were to defend his claim with concrete analysis instead of saying that he's holding back. If this opening meant very much to me, I'd wade in and try to work out what Ponz is hiding. But it just doesn't. And that's the entire reason that both Magnus Carlsen and Hou Yifan played it: nobody studies it in depth. 

There are published challenges to Ponz's book, citing errors and lacunae in the text. He's aware of some of these criticisms. Marin offers a comfortable line for Black to play. Gustafsson, in a Chessbase DVD, gives a line that is good enough for equality. Kaufman offers a line that gives Black practical winning chances.

One game mentioned in the reviews which challenges Ponz's book is W.Ottenweller-G.Aalderink, email 2005.

Ponz, do you plan to write a second edition that will deal with these and other criticisms of your book?

Jempty, I say we play!  Leave your computer off and see what happens.

It was not an accusation.  Not at all.  You showed a game against a program.  I simply mean play against a person instead.  Leave your computer off.  You have strong opinions about the Ponziani, I am asking you for a friendly game to see if I can change your mind.

Ok, so what about this line?
Do you disagree with anything that is said below?
If so what, and why?

Almost completely =. Marin points out that to have any hope of successfully using his space advantage white would need to conduct pawn offensive on both wings without simplifying too much.
This is obviously very difficult to do, not to mention that while doing this you would also need to stop black from neutralising the space advantage.

Fear, this is not one of the main lines and better lines are given in Play the Ponziani but in the book this line continues this way...

In the position instead of 7. Qd4   7. Qf3 is played more often and is a better line. However, I would play 7. Nc4.

Also, there is nothing wrong with just playing 7. Nxg6 as pointed out by Mr. Jempty.  7. Nxg6 is the way the line used to be played some years ago.

This variation can be somewhat boring if the wrong 7th move is chosen.

\However in the 4 Bishop endgame which can arise White has pretty fair winning chances and Black has virtually no chance to win.

Smyslovfan, there are two basic "refutations" to the Ponziani recently out.

One is by Kaufman.

One of the "refutations" is already covered in Play the Ponziani--apparently the author of the book with the refutation had not seen Play the Ponziani.

The other "refutation" from Kaufman is harder and already shown here on this forum.  I am working on several replies and am satisfied with my new theory so far but it is very complex and I am not ready to use it now unless it comes up in an actual vote chess game against Ponziani Power.

I am checking and rechecking my new theory--already I did find one flaw and had to redo a good part of my theory.

In the meantime the Ponziani is good enough for almost anyone and will continue to be ok despite what some may say about it.

Except for this little bit of new theory I am working on --am quite willing to discuss any line in the Ponziani. 

As Super Admin of the group Ponziani Power I declined your offer of a 'computer assisted' vote chess game. It is not something our group would be interested in. I mentioned this when declining the offer. 

Can I use computers or outside help in my Vote Chess game?

The default stance is that computers and outside help are NOT allowed! However, if a game is going to allow computer or outside help it will be clearly noted in the game description.

So, since computer assistance is optional, a group does not have to accept that condition.  If your team is so great, why must you have computer assistance?  Don't bother answering as I'm not interested in your foul mouth.

Lol.  Can someone please explain what computer assisted chess is?  

And Jempty, I am sure we agreed that there is no computer assistance in our games.

The theme of our team Ponziani Power is to learn how to use the Ponziani Opening in non-computer assisted games. We are not going to change that.

Right now we have more games going than I would like but in any event there is no point to a computer vs computer vote chess game.

And for sure you may be excellent in computer assisted games, bravo for you.  I would even bet you have a better computer than some of us have.

If you wish to find lines vs the Ponziani using your computers that is fine with me but do not expect a team which plays without computer assistence to all of a sudden play using a computer or computers.

I kind of get databases of old games.  That is studying.  But is Jempty talking about computer analyzed moves??  What is the point in that?

 Jempty Regarding your game against Fritz as something we would have to worry about [5. e5  Ne4] Sorry but we are not worried about that line even though that computer played the line incorrectly for the White side.

Ponz, do me a favor and dont discuss that game.  Jempty and I are playing a game that might resemble that one in particular.

thanks

kantifields  sure, I will not discuss that game further for now.

Ponziani Power Why We Have a Great Vote Chess Team

1. We are open to anyone who wants to learn a little or a lot about the Ponzianai Opening. We are a friendly group and delighted to have new members.

.
2. Any member may ask questions at any time and will recieve the best answer or answers we can give. There are no stupid questions. If you want to ask several questions that is ok also.

3. There is much information in our forums. Some discussion about Ponziani games played. Some theoretical discussion of Ponziani lines. Or discussions of other [usually chess] matters. Any member can contribute to our forums.

4. We have wonderful particpation in our vote chess gaames. There is much discussion of the potential moves and many members make diagrams of suggested lines. Probably we have more discussions in vote chess than almost any other team. Questions are asked and answered.

Opening theory is discussed in the vote chess games and sometimes there is discussion of chess theory in general.

You do not have to vote, you can just watch the discussions and still you will learn a whole lot.

Dave Taylor   ponz111

Wow.

Ok, if you create a group devoted to a specialized opening that nobody really plays, study it in game after game, publish analysis that only members of that group can see, then only accept invitations to play from groups that have never studied the game, then yeah, you'll probably win.

If you want a real challenge to the opening, allow the non-specialists access to computers so they can analyse the game as it's going on. Your best players have already spent months and months (or years and years) using computer analysis to prepare their specialised opening.

Make the game unrated, but learn from the game. 

Also, if you're really going to censor yourself because someone else is playing a game that features an opening under public discussion, then all public discourse about any topical line is pointless. (Not that this is the best place for theoretical discussions anyway.)

Thanks for the advice SmyslovFan...