5 Bb5 this already a clear advantage for white. See Horwitz Harrawitz 1846!
There is some good analysis in Dave's book on Ponziani
Yes, I've seen that game. 7.Ne5! looks like a dangerous improvement on that game, but Black seems to be ok after the Schliemann-esque 5...Qd6!?
Yes, my notes
say this line as mentioned by Bluebird is very good for White
We ran the variation with 3. c3 f5 4. exf5 d5 5. Bb5 in a chess engine vs chess engine tournament and White won all or most of the games. Here is one Equinox vs Viruivius
Firebrand. I will have to admit to not hardly considering 3. c3 f5
4. exf5 Qf6 and your equalizing lines are interesting.
I will suggest 5. Bb5 is at least worth a look.
Also, this line which is a continuation of your analysis [I do not know if it is reasonable or not as 1 hour not long to analyze]
ponz111, here is a question for you. If one were to become a ponziani player, the opening only works with 1...e5. Do you have a similar variation against the sicilian, or do you just play standard sicilian lines?
The Ponziani only works against 1. e4
Against the Sicilian I play 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. Bb5+
or 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5
or 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d3
or 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. Bb5+ Nc6 4. Bxc6+
At least when I was playing 15 minute games...
The closest Sicilian line to the Ponziani would be
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. c3
That Qf6 move is not a novelty. I have seen it in youtube videos for almost a year. Even then it was not offered as original.
Looking in my records--I have considered 4. exf5 Qf6 and there are several tries against it. My senility made me forget previous analysis but It is still there.
It will be interesting to see which line works [if any]
I will look for the youtube analysis. If I find it I will post the link.
Firebrand
Nobody said it was. I said I had hardly looked at it but I was wrong as I did not remember that I had analyzed the move pretty well.
Curious as to what is your line vs 3. c3 f5 4. exf5 Qf6 5. Bb5 [which I think may not work]
If I understand this particular line after 7. Qh5+ g6 8. fxg6 hxg6
9. Qe2 While Black can play 9. ...Bd7 and 10..... 0-0-0 Remember
White is up a pawn. And while initial computer analysis seem to give
Black a slight edge--as more moves are made White has his pieces on fairly good squares and seems to consolidate and then gradually take the advantage. Black has to prove he has compensation for the pawn and
this is not easy to do.
Wikipedia Ponziani
In 2010 Life Master Brian Wall refuted the Ponziani by reviving the George Brunton Fraser defense.
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. c3 Nf6 4. d4 Nxe4 5. d5 Bc5 6. dxc6 Bxf2+ 7. Ke2 Bb6 8.Qd5 Nf2 9. Rg1 O-O 10. cxb7 Bxb7 11. Qxb7 Qf6 12. Qa6 Rae8
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponziani_Opening
Thanks for the games, FirebrandX. Although I played poorly it was still one of the most interesting openings I was ever a part of and I would try it OTB.
Firebrand, I think you are missing my point. After 9. Qe2 Bd7 White is NOT to play 10. f3?
In the game between Brian and Firebrand, I thought 5. d3 was the correct continuation to play for a small advantage. Am I mixing up my lines?
kant, 5. d3 would be a line to play for a small advantage but Brian wanted to try the other line.
The 5. d3 line could use some more testing. I think it is a little better than its reputation of being an easy draw...
An easy draw is unlikely except maybe in Centaur chess. That is the line I play. I deviated from it in a recent game because I have been studying lots of computer analysis on that line so I felt it would be unfair.
Although now I wish I had played the 5.d3 line because my 2 games against my tournament opponent are mirror images (boring).
I will have to re-think my position on avoiding computer analysis during games. As one of my teamates pointed out, I would also need to avoid using opening books since they generally contain substantial computer analysis.
That is one reaason I really like the book Play the Ponziani. The lines may be computer vetted, but they are quite human from inception and the authors follow human games and make suggestions for improvements. Also, the book is quite thorough.
After tons of triple checking every evaluation using this site, to my eye, there is only 1 major revision, and a small number of minor revisions needed.
The major revision is a mainline choice that loses for white (a true refutation exists).
The biggest minor revision is the conclusion that the Fraser defense will likely result in a forced draw with best play by white (sorry Brian, but to me this is not a refutation and Wikipedia needs to be corrected).
You are right Dave 4.ef5 is very strong and after 4... e4 we are playing Nd4 and d3. Almost a clear advantage for white
What does White play on 4...d5?