Ponziani Opening

No I do not reccomend 6. Qb3  

Robert Taylor is not me. He is someone who wrote me about this line

3. c3  d5  4. Bb5   I explained to him that this whole line is a loser for White

[I have a whole chapter in my book showing this line is very bad] But Robert found what he thought was an improvement in one of the

4. Bb5 lines.  But his improvement still gave Black a big advantage and he was somewhat upset with me because I still said the whole line even with his improvement was bad for White.

After  3. c3  Nf6  4. d4 exd4  5. e5  Nd5 we suggest only one line out of 4 possibilities and that is 6.  cxd4 which is what we played in a couple of vote chess games.  

He is David Taylor.

Yes, but I am not the housing project either.  Robert Taylor, I think lives in UK.

Harding wrote a book/booklet on the Ponziani quite some time ago and

I forgot to mention this in my book but I improved on some of his ideas and of course we found the 3. c3  d5  4. Bb5 line to be a loser. 

Actually I do not find 3. c3 d5  4. Qa4  difficult except in that one line

which is 4. Qa4  f6  and believe me I have a ton of home analysis on this line. But the line is difficult for both sides. 

What is often played is 3. c3  d5  4. Qa4  Bd7  5. exd5  Nd4

6. Qd1  Nxf3+  7. Qxf3  and now Black usually plays Nf6 

After the sequence  1. e4  e5  2. Nf3  Nc6  3. c3  Nf6  4. d4  exd4

5. e5  Nd4  there are 4 main lines and the book had to cover all 4.

It took about 10 pages to cover all 4 as we tried to give the good lines for both White and Black but really I do not think that was excessive.

The 4 main lines are 6. Qb3    6. cxd4   6. Bb5   6. Bc4

10 pages out of how many allotted for the entire book?

301

Kaufman in his book used to advocate this line for Black. Now, he has changed his mind and he says his chess engines do not think the line all that good for Black.

My opinion is White has his normal opening move advantage.  We recently played a vote chess game with the line and have two vote chess games going now playing against this Black Gambit.

Demidjinn is correct that in this line the White queen lands on f3 and is often attacked [sometimes with e4]

I think that the two critical lines in the Ponziani are 3...d5 4.Qa4 f6, and the line I am employing (3...Nf6 4.d4 ed4 5.e5 Nd5!).

Somehow I do not like the former line because of 5.d3. This is a sort-of-strange Philidor Hanham in reverse, , where the qhite queen is a bit misplacd on a4 (her majesty can return to more suitable squares), while the mage done by ...f6 is permanent.

Objectively this is just equal, but say that I do not enjoy playing this position as Black- white has fair mid-term options, even if they may not mean much.

My advocated line is more dynamic, IMO. Magnus has adopted it, but since he is no opening authority, this may not mean much.

I respect Ponzi's analyical work and abilities, but I do not think white has any chances of an advantage in that line.

IMO the only good alernative to the Ruy and Modern Italian, is the Scotch, and the Four Knights Scotch. I have teached my students to play the latter, since it is very safe, and way less harmless than most people think.

pfren, it surely is true that at your level with your particular expertise White is not able to obtain an advantage with  5. e5  Nd5 variation. 

However at levels below IM there are practical chances for White [my opinion]  

I like this post! It is respectful of Ponz and his tremendous analytical work while showing proper disdain for the theoretical standing of the Ponziani, which with best play should not just end in a draw (after all, chess is a draw), but early equality (which squanders white's first move).

Beyond that, Pfren also offers concrete alternatives to the rather romantic Ponziani. Pfren's choices encourage his students to play creative chess and search independent lines while playing openings that promise slightly more than the Ponziani opening does. 

The spirit that led ponz to play the Ponziani is the same spirit that guides Pfren's recommendations: don't follow hackneyed main lines just because some Grandmasters find it fashionable. Seek the advantage in slightly less charted territory, strike out on your own and discover the magic of chess for yourself!

Chess Explorer is almost completely useless when it comes to The Ponziani.

One of several reasons  is because there is a lot of new theory developed recently. I tried a line a few minutes ago on an Explorer [the more extensive one] and at one place very early in the opening, it gave 60% win or draw for a losing move.  

We often do not even look at it in vote chess as it is not reliable at all to give the best move.

What matters at a level master or below is what practical chances an opening gives and in this regard the Ponziani is very good.

As to the level above master, I have played the Ponziani for many years against a mixture of about 75% masters and 25% experts and have a very good record with it.

When I play my 15 minute games I find the masters do not know the continuations and get into very bad positions. [and I am not a wizz at this type of chess] 

No not usually unless it is something like 1. e4  Nc6  2. Nf3  e5  3. c3

It's difficult to transpose into the Ponziani, but you can transpose into the Goring Declined from the Ponziani. One benefit of this is that it's an easy system for Black to play against the Goring, Danish and Ponziani.

Maybe Jempty, just be sure you know the piece sac that justifies that -/+ .75 20 moves in :)  That's the problem for me with these super programs.  It is for me the reason that using them in theoretical arguments is irrelevent.  The -/+ that you are referring to may well be based on something that we will never understand.

You should take whatever Taljechin (Johansson's handle in Chesspub) wrote in his "fascinating" book with a barrel of salt.

Black is at least slightly better after 7.Nc3 Qf5- if you cared to analyse yourself you would have found out.

White has a rough equality after 3.Bc4 d5 4.Bxd5 (4.ed5 is simply a very bad move) Nf6 5.Nc3! Nxd5!, but hardly more than that. Moreover, Black's play is extremely easy- the one that has to be careful is Black.

If white wants to play for win in the King's gambit (accepted), then he MUST play 3.Nf3, end of story. 3.Bc4 rather invokes than prevents ...d5.

White has advantage here? I though after 4... Qh4 5.Kf1 black is better. At least that's what I was said in my club and what I lost several times against.

I'm going very off-topic here but I think 5.Kf1 Ne7 needs more theoretical study. 5... g5 is pretty fun, but I'm not sure if it's the best. I usually transpose into Anderssen variation with c6.

Rightly so.

5...Ne7 is as old as Steinitz, yet not mentioned at all in Johansson's book.

5...Nf6 is entirely adequate for a slight Black pull, anyway. Here is another bust of the "fascinating" analyses:

Anyway, I think we are hijacking this thread, which is for an entirely different opening.

Ah, OK. Just bury your analyses deeply, else chances are you will take them for real.

Not good enough!

He's given you the line, show him where he is wrong, I'm sure a lot of us would be interested.