What chess records may never be broken?

Jeff, you misunderstand or I did not make myself clear. What I am saying that in the Ponziani the inclusion of Nf3 and Nc6 makes all the difference in the world. So saying 1. e4   c5   2. c3  is comparable to the Ponziani is a very poor anology. Of course the variation 1. e4  e5  2. c3?? is bad for White. 

And why are you  comparing lines which give White a .+0.45 and a +0.50 as some kind of refutation to the Ponziani?

There is far more to the Ponziani than you realize.  Just as there was far more to the Ponziani than the 2nd best player in the world realized.

But you digress from the point of this column which is about records which will never be broken--do you have some of these?  [how about the most perfect games of bowling by one player--13 strikes in a row--over 450 such games??]

I don't see much difference in the Ponziani either.   1. e4 e5  2. c3 has about the same eval (-0.38) as 1. e4 e5  2. Nf3 Nf6  3. c3 does (-0.27) after d5.   The only difference I see is that, in the first line, 2. c3 Nf6 is also better for black.   So when you say "it makes all the difference in the world" I'd have to disagree.   It's just a minute fraction of a pawn difference and 3. c3 is only very slightly better than 2. c3.   They are both better for black.   I'm not going by old book lines though.   I'm going by Stockfish's evaluations, which are far superior to old opening theory from the 1700's by Domenico Ponziani or the 1800's by Howard Staunton.   Even in the early 1900's the top GM's knew that The Ponziani was a dubious opening.   In 1904, Frank Marshall wrote "There is no point in White's third move (3. c3 in the Ponziani) unless Black plays badly. ... White practically surrenders the privilege of the first move".  

Oh, that one will definitely be broken.   If not by Caruana or Liren, then by Firouzja in the mid to late 2020's.   

You are not going to tell this guy anything about the Ponziani, he either doesn't already know, or actually wrote himself.

True.   Then deep down he knows that it's a dubious opening, as black "steals away" white's first move advantage at move 3.   He's just trying to defend it because it's playable and a few people have won with it when black wasn't fully prepared.   That or he's still desperately trying to sell copies of his book.   lol   The Ponziani has been known to be dubious since before 1904 though.   

Good one.   I agree that that record will never be broken.   

No, I do not know the Ponziani is a dubuious   opening. It is great for anyone who wishes to study the theory and is rated under 2350. It does not mafter about the poor theory of the 1800's or 1900''s. I have updated theory since then And it also does not matter if stock fish gives an incorrect evaluation after 3. c3   d5.  If you could see the column on the opening you might change your mind!?

What usually happens after 1. e4  e5. 2. Nf3  Nc6  3. c3  d5  White plays 4. Qa4 and Black gets a lost game quickly.  If you had an open mind and could view some of the games in the forums you  might change your mind?

Naa.  Frank Marshall and Stockfish both think that 3. c3 gives up the first move advantage for white and it's hardly ever seen at the elite level, so it must be true.   If 3. c3 was a good 3rd move, we'd be seeing a lot more Ponzianis and fewer Ruy Lopez/Berlins in elite play.   It would be more interesting for the spectators though, I'll give you that.   I'm getting tired of Berlins.   

Jeff, you are making a glaring error.  I said the Ponziani is very good for players rated up to 2350. 

So, of course it is seldom seen at the various highest levels. 

Since I am considerably above 2350 --I think 1. d4 is for me and have won ALL my games with this opening. 

Frank Marshall knew little about the Ponziani. His theory was very incorrect.

Until rather recently super grand masters were playing the Ponziani  incorrectly with major errors but I have corrected the theory since then. I could show you a game where 2 super grand masters were playing a Ponziani line and BOTH made glaring errors both on their 4th move!!  

So, you're better than Frank Marshall and today's elite GM's eh?   lol   Do you realize how silly that sounds?   On that note, I'm through discussing this topic with you.   You're obviously delusional.   

Jeff,

Yes, for sure I am far better than Frank Marshall in analyzing the Ponziani.  

And as I said the Ponziani is not for today's very elite grand masters. You are ignoring this.

I am not at all afraid of grand masters--so far I have only played 4 grand masters in serious play [or any play] and my record is 4 wins and no losses or draws.

Jeff Green you mention something about many of my records were in the past and what have I done lately now that I am older?

I challenged the best players I could find in Chess com and some strong players accepted my challenge and my score was 6 wins and 2 draws playing nothing but Black.  One was a grand master and I won from him.  This is recorded on Chess com. 

As I get older my chess ability has gone down some but if I am in a very slow play game--I am still stronger than my rating ICCF Correspondence Chess. [don't remember my exact rating but it is over 2500]