Ponziani Opening



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...Smile


SmyslovFan you are way off base. There are many teams which specialize in certain openings. I belong to three of them. 

There is absolutely nothing wrong in having a team which only plays a certain opening. The purpose of Ponziani Power is to learn about this opening for people who are interested.

And I know that other than me we do not have one player who has spent months and years or years and years using computer assistence to analyze the Ponziani. In fact most of our team does not even have the book Play the Ponziani and they are certainly not experts in this opening.

You are maligning 52 out of 53 players in our group with your untrue statements.

We do not need you to tell us how to do things in our group.

And I am personally open to discussion about lines in the Ponziani except for that one line out of 1000 that I have not completed my study.   


Ponz, I said that if you want a real challenge to the opening, not to the group, you should allow unrated vote chess games where both sides use an engine. If you want a deep theoretical discussion of the opening, the only fair way is to have a vote chess match where both sides have access to computers. 

Your group has 53 players. Congratulations!  I was not maligning the group. I am maligning any arguments that vote chess games where one side has an unfair advantage in Ponziani theory (or any specialised opening) over the other is an appropriate way to settle theoretical debates about the worth of that opening.

This thread is not about any specific group, it's about an opening. My comments were about the opening.


We use vote chess games to look at and discuss opening lines of the Ponziani. The discussion carries on through the mid game and if the game lasts that long, the endgame. Vote Chess at its best.



The purpose of Ponziani Power is NOT to settle theoretical debates--the purpose is to give people a chance to learn about the Ponziani Opening.

I also belong to a group which plays the Benko Gambit and a group which plays The Scandinavian and a group which plays the Bb5 Sicilian. People join these groups to learn more about the particular opening and sometimes to have fun playing in maybe a vote chess game. People do not join these groups to have to play against a chess computer.

You were way off base when you stated "Your best players have already spent months and months [or years and years] using computer analysis to prepare their specialized opening." This is simply UNTRUE! Our players,   the vast majority of them, are learners-NOT specialists in the Ponziani.

They do not analyze the Ponziani for months or years using computers.

What you say about them is just NOT TRUE!

And we do not need your advice on how to run our group--we do just fine without your advice!




I asked Ponz not to discuss a line that is being played by two people that monitor this thread.  I asked so that my opponent would have a fair chance.


please just let me add....good riddance.  I still don't know why one of our higher rated players didn't play Jumpety.  Kanti didn't even have a book!


Ok.  For those not in our Vote chess team.  Here is the Kanti vs. Jempty challenge game:

jempty_method wrote:

Now I'm leaving this thread FOR GOOD

So now "GOOD" = two weeks?

Tongue out


It was two long weeks :)

Was that a blitz game?


You are pretty booked up for someone who doesn't care much for an opening that is unlikely to be played against you.  Why?


Makes sense.


Ponziani Game Puzzle  9 moves See how many you can get 1st try

9  right you can beat Carlsen

8.  you can draw Carlsen

7. Supergrandmaster

6. grandmaster

5. master



3. Class A

2. Class B

1. Class c

0  Class D or below


6/9 but I'm really not sure if 1st and 2nd move are the best moves if your opponent doesn't make a mistake.


Cnacnel do you mean first and 2nd moves for White or for Black?


Lol.  It took me a couple moves before I recognized I played in this game.  Even then I only got 8 moves.  I needed 2 tries for move 4.


I got 6 and also disagree with White's first move and I think the 4th is debatable. Black's 4th loses.


It is not a question of blacks moves, it is a question of finding the strongest white responses.

We are pretty sure white made the best move in each position, including whites first move!


I prefer Bxf6 followed by d5