Ponziani Opening

Insanistis, Mr. Wall has a high rating in USCF.  If you think 12. Qa6 is better try playing it against either Mr. Wall or FirebrandX.

This thread is useless

Yet, we still don't know how you got such a high rating

I am willing to defend the honor of George Brunton Fraser against anyone from the top to the bottom, in this case, from FirebrandX to Insanistis.

Brian Wall,  lowly 1400.

Firebrand, care for a game without your engine analysis?

Firebrand, I took your suggestion.

Insanistas may be forgiven for not realising how strong a chess player Brian is. He plays moves that almost nobody else with a rating over 1000 would consider. But he makes them work. He's kind of a local version of Stefan Buecker. 

The chess world needs iconoclasts such as Brian and Stefan!

I do not see the need for personal attacks on this thread. [this does not mean I will band anyone who does a personal attack but there is a limit]

I feel like I should know SmyslovFan 

I predicit the Ponziani will become a coffee house opening when the analysis that the mainline is a forced draw at high levels become well known.

Since I am a A-class player, I will get to enjoy it for a much longer time.

After looking at the opening for a bit, I get the feeling that it is mostly played with the hope that Black doesn't go for the crazy line which resembles sort of a Traxler on steroids.

I suppose one strategy would be to bail out with 4.d3 against 3...Nf6 and concentrate the heavy theory on 3...d5 4.Qa4?

Only if the 4. d3 line has winning chances (which I doubt).  Otherwise the opening is busted.

Insaistis questioned ratings and chess moves.  Firebrand called him a "F***** troll", and Insanistis was banned for personal attacks! WOW.

Brian, thanks for for clearly pointing out the limits of this opening.

More power to Brian and Stefan Bueker!  They are independent thinkers or I should say they think outside the box.

I found a place where I can express my non chess views on chess.com.

Firebrand are there lines in the Ruy Lopez which come out to a very drawish position?

Firebrand,

There is no justification for calling people out of their name.  You can't defend your comments.  Although since I am thick skinned they don't bother me.  I just find it laughable that a legitmite chess expert was banned from this forum at your request for questioning ratings and moves.  While you routinely shoot off your mouth, and in this case called the guy a "f...ing troll" and told him to "piss off".  

It is plain to me that your analysis is spot on, thanks to your skill in maximizing your computer's ability.

Any response to the no computer analysis game with me?

this is one thing i like about chess.com - no matter how ridiculous or silly something is, people will find a way to start an argument. :P

so 12 Qd5 is an improvement - i also independently got to the conclusion that 12 Qa6 seems to lose for white because of 13.. e4.
if that has already been pointed before, blame me, i haven't read all the first 50 pages. :P

He was definitely a troll.  He disparaged two players ratings and was saying this thread is useless.  If he believes this thread is useless--and he denigrates others this is not a thread for him.

He was not banned for questioning moves but I noticed he did not follow up on the challenge. 

Lots of people attack the Ponziani this is ok.  But attacking two players who are contributing theory--attacking personally--is not cool. I have only banned two people from this site both for attacking personally and I mean attacking personally over the top.

By the way, kant, some  remarks against FirebrandX were a bit wide of being fair and they made him very upset but I did not even consider banning anyone for that.

accurate remarks are not an attack.

In any event, it appears Firebrand is not interested in a non computer assisted game.  Since I have no engine, I will need that challenge addressed by someone whose forte is in the realm of unassisted chess .  anyone above 1800 interested?