> Crucifying a 2000 with the Ponziani

Hey all! Off the back of a recent very mixed couple of days/weeks where I've been dipping above and below 1900, it was very nice to get a brutal win against a strong opponent today (especially as I blundered mate in one earlier in a drawn endgame. Don't get me started...)

Recently been playing a lot of Ponziani, and it's an underrated weapon. This game was decided by a blunder by my opponent, sure, but the pressure the opening put on him was the cause. As always, too, it's instructive to note that it's very rarely the first mistake that ends the game...

Oh, and, to make matters more fun, he blocked me afterwards. Hope his day improves.

Interesting

Glad you enjoyed

For sure! The position was just under a LOT of pressure and the mistake it eventually caused was somewhat inevitable

Hey, hope you're doing well my man! Thanks for sharing the game - it's a good study into how the Ponziani ideally wants to operate. You can see how White's central control was giving Black a lot of trouble, especially once the Bishops started to come off the board.

In particular, I found the position around 13. Bc2 very fascinating. This move was classed as an inaccuracy, but Black got the wrong idea about why this move wasn't that great. They believed that Bc2 ceded c4 and allowed 13. ...Nc4, which would require White to maintain resources guarding against infiltration and possibly committing resources like b3. The engine isn't convinced, and when you really analyse it, it does look like the Knight on c4 flatters to deceive with how effective it is actually being.

The real reason why 13. Bc2 is an inaccuracy is because it gives Black a tempi to strike back and regain some control, either in the centre or on the Queenside. There's trading the Bishops with the idea of playing Ng6, but there is also c6 to solidify the d5 pawn and prevent Nb5 in the future. The most fascinating move, though, is f6, attacking White's central pawn structure. At first sight, this looks bizarre: why would you open the diagonal your King is on when they have a Bishop on the same colour squares and a Queen currently on them as well? But, there are two caveats that make this move work. Firstly, White cannot immediately take advantage of the weakness, even if they do pin the pawn. Secondly, trying to take advantage of this with something like 14. Bc2 would allow Black to open the f-file and get a lot of counterplay, threatening to double the pawns in front of White's castled King.

The reason I raise these points is exactly because I am not the one playing the game; I am a mere schmuck looking at the game with an engine to seem 'smarterer'. I have a few questions about the game and especially this kind of position going into the middlegame.

1. The engine took a dim view of undeveloping your Bishop to trade it away. I understand that this wasn't done on a whim and there's an underlying logic behind it, but how did you come to the conclusion to trade the Bishops? Was the logic more based in theoretical understanding or more based in a practical concern for the growing threat?
2. As previously mentioned, Bc2 allowed Black the tempi to strike back and secure space. What kind of responses were you weighing up when considering Bc2? What did you expect Black's immediate and long-term strategy to be, and did your expectations differ from reality?
3. The engine really likes 13. Nh4, with the idea of supporting the e5 pawn with f4. It's easy to say the move is good with an engine, but what kind of tactical ideas were you considering in this position? Are they specific to this variation of the Ponziani, or are they more based in the wider Ponziani theory?

Once again, thanks for making the post!

What did you say to him that prompted him to block you?

Some people are just sore losers. I had a guy block me after he tried the Scholar's Mate and got absolutely smoked, even after I mistakenly blundered my queen.

I guess I've had the good fortune to never have been blocked or to never have noticed it. It can never be confirmed, but I strongly suspect OP said something to them to get blocked.

I didn't say a thing, actually - I only found out because I went to message him after the game to wish him a good game, and it said that he'd blocked me. Some people are like that, perhaps he just was upset losing to someone lower rated?

Interesting

But

Confising

Confusing

Too

Hey mate! I'm doing very well, and thanks for your long comment. In answer to your questions (bearing in mind I played this game 2 months ago, so forgive me if I'm not 100% faithful to my thought process)

1. Offering to trade the bishop had a few benefits. My bishop wasn't contributing much on the b3 square, as his pawn was very well defended. His bishop, by contrast, was his most active piece - offering to trade a poor piece for a good piece is usually pretty sound. Also, had he taken, he would have helped me develop, connecting my rooks and activating my queen which, at the very least, has the rudimentary ideas of ng5 in the future. As a sample line, imagine bishop takes, queen takes, random move for black like c6 (humour me), ng5 ng6 defending, f4 and we're definitely cooking.

2. A lot of the above applies here as well, but f6 wasn't massively on my radar (im not an engine, unfortunately), but on first glance it doesn't worry me too much. I don't have to acknowledge it, and in some lines it may even allow me a passed e-pawn. Something like bxf5 nxf5 re1 looks encouraging, particularly if he takes the e-pawn allowing me to recapture.

3. Nh5 didn't even need calculation - it had to be a good move. Call it intuition if you want? But the knight is attacked so must move, forwards progress is almost always positive, and by playing g5 he's massively weakened the f6 square. Even if he defends the fork, the epawn helping secure that square means it will be a wonderful outpost for our knight, with both attacking prospects and long term positional value. I haven't looked too deeply at the line, but at a glance I did see an interesting idea just now - kf8 nf6 re7 h4 gxh4 nxh4 nxh4 qe7 - would need to calculate further to see if it's sound but you get the picture - that knight is a beast.

Hope that helps explain and makes sense! @DLRush31 let me know if you've got more questions about this game or about chess in general, i'm always happy to answer.

I'm glad you found it interesting, and sorry if my chess confuses you! It was a reasonably complex position and a lot more "manouvery" than my usual style, I must say. A rare example of me vaguely understanding the positional ideas!!