Ponziani Opening

Jempty hates being irrelevent.

Jempty you are ignoring the main reason I do not wish to publish the whole game here.  This is called a strawman argument. I give you the reason I do not publish the games associated with the puzzles and you ignore the reason I gave and speculate on other reasons So you mischaracterize my position and that is the strawman argument.

There is not going to be a revised 2nd book as far as I know.

However I do publish some revisions in Ponziani Power.

Jempty you do not own this thread, I am not going to give out the whole games just to please you. You just have to take my word for it that these puzzles are from vote chess games...

If you don't take my word--then it is you, not me, who has a problem...

He did take your word that these games are a result of Ponziani games.  His position is that since you are only posting the end of the game as a puzzle, then your post is so far removed from the Ponziani that this is an innapropriate forum for those posts.  i.e those games are indistinguishable from many other openeings and are no longer related to Ponziani theory.

He is ignoring the reason I gave for not publishing the games.  When someone gives a reason for something in an argument and then his opponent ignores that reason and speculates on something else as my  reason--that is a strawman argument as he is mischaracterizing my position.

Actually if you look at the starting positions of the last two puzzles you can see characteristics of the positions which you may get out of the Ponziani Opening.

My posts are from positions in Ponziani vote chess games so they are not removed from the Ponziani at all. In fact they are actually moves played with the exception that our opponents did not let us finish the smothered mate in the first example.

the last two posts are from fairly early positions in the Ponziani Opening also. 

One thing these puzzles do is to show that despite what some people say-the Ponziani is quite a playable opening.

I'll accept on Monday.  I am going to a tournament this weekend and won't be able to play online.

Jempty just because YOU say my reason for not showing the game is "irrelevant" does not mean it is "irrelevant"

Your diagram is a position which "could" have come from the Ponziani Opening and thus you think it would not be relevant in this thread.

But here is the difference--the puzzles I gave DID come from Ponziani--NOT "COULD HAVE COME"

I did give my main reason and you can say it is not relevant all you want but I think it is relevant.

Just because you tell me 6 times to post the Ponziani puzzles elsewhere does not mean I am going to do it.

The puzzles I gave DID come from the Ponziani so your speculation that someone might post something not relevant is just that--speculation...

I actually wonder... probably in 50 years we'll know if it's true, when computers solve chess like they did solve checkers. I rather believe that white wins by force in about 60 moves.

Rule # 36 

'Don't feed the troll'

Jempty_Method is a classic case of this. If you read the definition of a troll you will see. Simply ignore everything he says and he will go away. Trolls hate being ignored. They feed off people reacting to their provocative posts.

The following puzzle is not from a vote chess Ponziani game. It is from a 15 minute per side Ponziani

This puzzle is from a quick play Ponziani Opening game I played a few months ago.

That game is a known trap.  All Ponz players should become familiar with how to win when black is inaccurate, and how to crush when black blunders.  These posts are definitely valuable in this forum.  If anyone in our group does not get this puzzle correct...50 push-ups.

I like it! (the puzzle above)  BUT probably not enuff to start playing the Ponziani again, which I used to play routinely back before PCs, DBs, the Internet etc. It's got at least one thing in common with KG: Black has no lack of good lines that either equalize or do even better than equalize, so as Black you only gotta know one line you like but as White you need to know several. Still, not everyone  has even one good line ready for these antique openings OTB

The last puzzle is definitely appropriate.  The first two are questionable (maybe).  If the positions might interest in the opening...then they are appropriate.

I would guess that many of the people who say that the Ponziani is easy to equalize against would not say that if they knew a lot of Ponziani theory.

That is one thing we are teaching in our vote chess games at Ponziani Power.

Despite what a certain player once said on this thread--the vast majority of members in Ponziani Power are there to learn the opening NOT players who sit around and use their chess engines to study this opening

kantifields, you and I disagree as to what is appropriate.  I did give a reason why I may not want to publish the whole game for some of these puzzles.

Well, I do say that Black has easy equality in the Ponziani. The definition of "easy" may vary, but well, you do get the point- don't you?

I guess I do not know much about it, no?

Makes me wonder. Let's say that 2 players with the same amount of theory in Ponziani would face off. Will black be able to equalize? I'd say yes.

Cnacnel  and I would say no to your question

But the thing is--if someone decides to study the Ponziani and put the Ponziani as something he plays--then on average, he will have a lot more knowledge than his opponent.

In my 15 minute games I am constantly running into masters and experts who know only a little about the Ponziani and they often get a lost game  quite early.

There is a whole lot of new theory on the Ponziani which makes it a good opening for most anybody.