Talk:Ponziani Opening

Mid-importance?

Really? Personally I'd be inclined to rate it Low. No one plays the Ponziani these days, and I see no reason to think that it will ever make a comeback. The Ponziani is about as significant as the Grob (1.g4) these days. Krakatoa (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It was mid before, I only changed it's class to B-Class. Saying that if it wasn't assessed before I'd have most likely gone for Mid although I won't object to a low as for me it's borderline. Remember the readers are mostly not Masters or anything like it and I know that Zeider regularly plays or at least used to play it and it's more common at lower grades. SunCreator (talk) 00:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It may not be a popular opening but no decent chess encyclopedia should be without it:) I think when it comes to openings "low importance" should only be reserved for jokes like 1.Na3 or similar. Pawnkingthree (talk) 08:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I've re-rated the article as "Low" importance. I don't think it's more significant than the Staunton Gambit, Hungarian Defense, and Dunst Opening, for example, each of which is rated "Low". Krakatoa (talk) 16:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Not really true anymore, the Ponz has made a minor comeback this decade. Magnus Carlsen played it recently at TATA Steel. OGBranniff (talk) 04:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Carlsen plays just about everything, so that means nothing. Toccata quarta (talk) 05:00, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Caro Variation

How is the Caro Variation "unconvincing?" Emms gives it as the main line in Play the Open Games as Black. I just plugged it into Houdini and Houdini already thinks Black has more than equalized after Nf6, and that's an engine giving the side that gambited a pawn more than compensation so that's saying quite a bit. I don't know what it says about it in "play the Ponziani" which would be the most up to date source. Would it be possible to get a more up to date take on the line or remove the adjective all together at it appears to be an opinion not backed up by analysis and doesn't appear right. After Nf6 Black has already developed two pieces and has open lines for the Bishops. White has moved the Queen three times and that's not the last time she's going to have to move. In addition to having the early Queen out none of White's pieces can move without further pawn moves unless the Knight develops to a6. Black's compensation seems pretty convincing to me, also the best chess Engine in the world, also John Emms and I don't think it'd be hard to find more authors who agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.72.240.196 (talk) 03:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

'unconvincing' is used because that's what the 'Euwe' source says. What year is John Emms 'Play the Open Games as Black' book? Emms was also editor on Nunn's Chess Openings(NCO)(1999) where 4....Bd7 is given as a side line. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 23:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The Emms is 2000 published by Gambit which is directed by John Nunn, I believe. Emms analysed d5 and Nf6. In the position after 4. Qa4 the Caro is not so much given as a "main line." It's actually the only line given. "The most consistant follow-up to 3...d5. Black continues in aggressive fashion and gambits a pawn." ... there are several splits after that, each ending "with a very pleasant endgame," "with good compensation for the pawn," "with a menacing attack," "with a promising kingside attack." Obviously Emms does not see the gambit as unconvincing. Ok, he is writing a repertoire book and only wants to give two options, so he's suggesting the Caro as the adventurous line in d5 (Nf6 being the safe line,) maybe he doesn't even think it's the best move, but that it fits best in the slot he needs in the book for an aggressive and interesting response to the Ponz, but I don't imagine he'd recommend it at all if he thought it were bad, particularly as emphatically as he does. The analysis after that over 4. Bb5 is, I understand, what shut down that variation in the new version of Play the Ponziani. Play the Open Games as Black is one of the best chess books I've ever read. I highly recommend it. Anyway why is one author's pre-modern-analysis opinion presented as the only truth in the position without any analysis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.72.240.196 (talk) 04:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Euwe's view is given weight as he is an ex-world champion and because I don't have access to Emms book and therefore can't add something I can't verify. What analysis does Emms give after "5.exd5 Nd4 6.Qd1 Nxf3 7.Qxf3"? If as Emms claims 4...Bd7 is the 'main line' then why is no strong player playing this variation? Instead this week Svidler opted for 4...Nf6 http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1717746 Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 12:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

After 7. Qxf3 Emms suggests 7... Bd6 so as not to block the f-pawn, but I don't think it's best. The ChessPub forum leads me to believe Kaufmann suggests 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 c3 d5 4 Qa4 Bd7 5 exd5 Nd4 6 Qd1 Nxf3+ 7 Qxf3 Nf6 8 Bc4 e4 9 Qe2 Bd6 10 d4 O-O 11 Bg5 h6 12 Bh4 Re8 13 O-O Bf4 is a near refutation of the Ponziani in The Chess Advantage in Black and White... I think that line is better for Black than Emms' fun way to play with f5 before Nf6. I don't have that book, but it is already footnoted in this article so maybe your or someone else editing this has it? I'm not saying it's important at all which line is called a main line esp as yes, super GMs just played the other gambit which is also fine for Black. I'm just saying the Caro isn't bad. (Why is no strong player play Bd7? ... hardly any strong players are playing the Ponziani at all. It's not exactly at the cutting edge of theory. I imagine many of the variations would get more play if the opening itself were played at the top level more than once every couple years.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.72.240.196 (talk) 04:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Ref

• http://www.chesspublishing.com/content/1/mar03.htm#pon. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 04:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Is there a BCO 2 source for "the Ponziani"

The ISBN 0713460997 copy of BCO doesn't call it "the Ponziani" as currently written in the article but "Ponziani". Unless it is suppose to be read from page 366 at the start of a paragraph "The Ponziani is a very old opening ...". Is it different is other versions of the book? Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 13:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't have BCO 2, just BCO (0713421126). It's clear it's referred to as "Ponziani" in that book. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I assumed that the "The Ponziani" bit that you quote is the source of the statement in this article. I am a little uncertain whether this actually belongs here as it seems more like a casual reference rather than an official name. For example, the Ruy Lopez is sometimes simple referred to as "the Ruy", but I don't know if that needs to be pointed out in the encyclopedia. Quale (talk) 23:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree ("the Ponziani" is not editorially accurate). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Magnus Carlsen

Magnus Carlsen just played Ponziani against Harikrishna in the Tata Open http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1704802 Cbrites (talk) 10:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

We haven't got this variation covered: '1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. c3 Nf6 4. d4 d5 5. Bb5 exd4 6. e5 Ne4'. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 23:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)