Ponziani Opening

4. Bd3 is not part of mainline theory and is a very bad move.

To my former team:

Congratulations!

for exceeding expectations!

Ponziani Power

team of the hour!

13 in a row!

quie a show!

I disagree with my friend, Firebrandx.  There are some Ponziani lines Firebrand is not aware of.

However he refers to a venue in the upper 1 hundredth of 1%. In other words even if he is correct [which I dispute] then 999 out of 1000 players would be ok with using the Ponziani. 

I believe the ponziani is inferior to the Ruy, Scotch and the Italian for white in OTB play  . In correspondence these days it doesnt matter what you play since I think most people now use engines .  I believe the acid test for white in the Ponziani is 3... d5 !  and it is then white struggling for equality more often than black .  3... Nf6 is also a good line for black but not as sharp/critical . 

I also disagree with NM Rob on this.

For over-the-board the Ponziani has a better win rate than the Ruy Lopez [and I am not saying the Ruy is a bad opening]

Also in correspondence where chess engines are used--there are Ponziani lines NM Rob is not aware of.

In the vote chess games, teams played 3. ... d5 and 3. ...Nf6 and 3. ...f5 and it was the other teams struggling for equality [and Ponziani Power won 13 in a row against some very good teams]

Just making a general statement such as white is struggling for equality more often than Black in the 3. ...d5 line does not make it true.

The chance of winning 13 games in vote chess in a row with any opening is usually less than one in a hundred thousand and the fact that Ponziani Power did this should go a little way to indicate the Ponziani is much stronger than indicated  by such general statements.

Firebrand has disassociated playing better chess, from the opening.  The purpose of the opening is to give you better chances.  Centaur chess, though good for a certain type of chess player, is really not pitting an individuals ability against another's.  It appears to be true that when aided by a strong engine, in a few particular lines in the Ponziani, black can force a draw.  I suspect that is true with most openings.

In any opening Black can force a draw with best play.

The question for non centaur chess [which is more than 99% of the games] is does the Ponziani give good practical chances and the answer is YES. [this assumes the Ponziani Player is somewhat up to latest theory]

For Centaur chess the question is are there drawing lines vs the Ponziani and the answer is that some lines said to be drawing--there is some new theory for White. 

Centaur ICCF Correspondence Chess at the highest levels is about one in a thousand venue and I dispute the drawing lines.

I will say there is much more to Centaur chess than some say as it is still pitting individuals against each other or otherwise you would have no clear winners.

What I meant by pitting individuals against each other is the unusual forced mate with 3 sacrafices that most humans would not see in their lifetime.  Those type of former brilliancies probably disappear in Centaur chess.

Centaur chess is a search for chess purity.  That is great for some people.  

I would be curious to play one of those types of players with their engines and engine analysis turned off.

A Ponziani game played under fast time control (plenty of errors) with equally rated players:

Centaur chess is a search for the very best played chess  and some players are very good at Centaur chess and this is why there is still competition in say ICCF correspondence.

It does not matter how good or bad an individual may be in regular chess as that is not his speciality.

When I found that my over the board chess was only about 2200 and my correspondence chess was higher--I stopped my over the board USCF and played what I was good in and that was correspondence chess.

Some players [such as myself] can figure out almost anything with enough time but cannot play bullet chess worth a darn.

There are unique skills to Centaur chess and to over the board USCF chess and to Chess Com Vote Chess and to bullet chess.

Kant the game you presented was a French Defense--not a Ponziani 

You keep saying the Ponziani has a better win rate than the Ruy but you are being somewhat deceptive because you dont mention that its win rate is about 1 % more while its loss rate is much more than 1 % more than the Ruy too , the huge difference is in the draws ... look at any good database and you will see that while the Ponziani may win a very small % more it also loses a large % more and draws a large % less as well ... 

Thanks, fixed it.

I will say that the Ruy has a better avoid the loss rate than the Ponziani

here are the exact stats

Ruy Lopez  win 40%   loss 27%  draw  33%  ranked # 4

Ponziani    Win  41%   Loss 29%   draw 30% ranked tied for 5th 6th 7th

The best opening is Queens Gambit 1. d4  d5  2. c4

with Win 41%  Loss 25%  Draw 34%

One thing to be considered in these stats--The Ponziani [I think] is trending higher for results as people learn how to play this opening.

This bodes well for the Ponziani.

The stats show the Ponziani winning 1% more than the Ruy and losing 2% more than the Ruy and this is not a "huge" or "large" difference.

There are other factors such as if you play the Ruy you will have to know about ten times the theory as if you play the Ponziani.

If you want to improve your win ratio or general chess results you will find a good line to play against the Sicilian [if you are a 1. e4 player]

Many players play the Sicilian so as to avoid having to play against the Ponziani [my little joke-before someone jumps all over me]

There is a Ponziani Tournament going on now.  Using chess engines and playing one black and one white against each opponent.

The players up on theory are killing the other players despite use of chess engines for both sides.

The same results occur without the engines.  Unfortunately I have no engine, just 5 or 6 openings book (only using 2 right now).

Play the Ponziani and Mayhem in the Morra.

The Ponziani book is more thorough, the Morra book more descriptive.  It is probably the nature of the openings in the that the Morra uses more ideas and killer tactics that must be learnt (otherwise the Morra is "un-playable"), while the Ponziani relies on discrete lines and is always "playable".

30 tp 50 years ago I played the Smith Morra.  At one point Ken Smith called me "my hero"

In the first USCCC Prelims I had White against Ken Smith and played

1. e4  [actually 1. Pawn to King Four]  guess what was his reply?

1... e6?

nope not 1. ... e6