The Ponziani- Your Thoughts?

Originally posted by passedpawn22
The dude on you tube mentions both of these. He actually thinks that 3...Nf6 is good for white because of 4.d4, playing a type of gambit. Some lines he shows looks like white can get a good game from this.

With 3...d5 4.Qa4, it's considered the main line, and your correct, it's pretty unclear and is a fairly sharp game.

Here's the links for ...[text shortened]... youtube.com/watch?v=JOZLHeKWhTQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uebPhpnio8Y&feature=related

Could you point out how white can get something real after 3...Nf6 4.d4 Nxe4 5.d5 Nb8 ?

Originally posted by Korch
Well after 3...d5 4.Qa4 things does not seem so clear. In my opinion black can reach equality with 3...Nf6.

I have to admit I like 3...d5 4.Qa4 f6 for black. It's a sharp line that gives black good practical chances, though white should be able to equalise with accurate play. Hardly a great recommendation for the opening.

Originally posted by Northern Lad
I have to admit I like 3...d5 4.Qa4 f6 for black. It's a sharp line that gives black good practical chances, though white should be able to equalise with accurate play. Hardly a great recommendation for the opening.

It one-sided evaluation - also black can get into trouble if they will not play accurate, so its not clear who should "equalise with accurate play". And opening advantage is not end in itself but only one of the possible instruments to win game. And if White player like to play these positions and he understands them better than opponent then maybe he has better chances to win playing Ponziani with equal play than playing some more popular opening with theoretic advantage.

Originally posted by Korch
And opening advantage is not end in itself but only one of the possible instruments to win game. And if White player like to play these positions and he understands them better than opponent then maybe he has better chances to win playing Ponziani with equal play than playing some more popular opening with theoretic advantage.

Your line of reasoning is why I often play the London System (1 d4 2 Nf3 3 Bf4). I realize that "objectively" my opening advantage is somewhere between scant and non-existent. But it typically leads to middlegame positions that I am familiar with and my opponent often isn't familiar or comfortable with. I therefore have a "practical" , if not a theoretical, advantage.

Originally posted by Korch
Could you point out how white can get something real after 3...Nf6 4.d4 Nxe4 5.d5 Nb8 ?

Surely an opening where Black has to retreat the Knight back to b8 on the 5th move can't be good even if White doesn't have any immediate strong moves. Black has certainly lost a couple of tempos at any rate.

Originally posted by gaychessplayer
But it typically leads to middlegame positions that I am familiar with and my opponent often isn't familiar or comfortable with. I therefore have a "practical" , if not a theoretical, advantage.[/b]

That's it. You have it.

So you can merrily go down a theorectical dodgy path but as long as
it leads to...

"...middlegame positions that I am familiar with and my opponent often isn't...."

Yes you do indeed have good practical chances. - Excellent practical chances.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Surely an opening where Black has to retreat the Knight back to b8 on the 5th move can't be good even if White doesn't have any immediate strong moves. Black has certainly lost a couple of tempos at any rate.

Practice of this opening does not confirm such a dogmatic evaluation. moves like 2.c3 and 5.d5 does not help whites development too much and after 5...Nb8 both sides has developed one knight (on f3 and f6). So I dont see where is the advantage.

Originally posted by Korch
It one-sided evaluation - also black can get into trouble if they will not play accurate, so its not clear who should "equalise with accurate play". And opening advantage is not end in itself but only one of the possible instruments to win game. And if White player like to play these positions and he understands them better than opponent then maybe he has bett ...[text shortened]... ying Ponziani with equal play than playing some more popular opening with theoretic advantage.

Well, all I can say is that I've never got into trouble in this line and have always achieved a very comfortable position.

Originally posted by Northern Lad
Well, all I can say is that I've never got into trouble in this line and have always achieved a very comfortable position.

So probably its not the best opening to play against you. Which does not mean that it will be ineffective against others.

Originally posted by Korch
Practice of this opening does not confirm such a dogmatic evaluation. moves like 2.c3 and 5.d5 does not help whites development too much and after 5...Nb8 both sides has developed one knight (on f3 and f6). So I dont see where is the advantage.

White doesn't have a spatial advantage? Who's being "dogmatic"?

Originally posted by no1marauder
White doesn't have a spatial advantage? Who's being "dogmatic"?

Spatial advantage itself may give nothing if you don`t have ways how to exploit it. Evaluation only by some indications (like spatial advantage) ignoring other specific signs are quite old-fashioned. Today each Hedgehog player would laugh about players evaluating position like "If he has spatial advantage then he is better".

Originally posted by Korch
Spatial advantage itself may give nothing if you don`t have ways how to exploit it. Evaluation only by some indications (like spatial advantage) ignoring other specific signs are quite old-fashioned. Today each Hedgehog player would laugh about players evaluating position like "If he has spatial advantage then he is better".

I forgot that were such a stubborn, know it all. Please cite me to a serious chess expert who says spatial advantage is completely meaningless. While you're at it, cite me to an opening book that recommends retreating your knight back to its original square within the first five moves as a way to gain "dynamic equality".

BTW, it's awful tough to play a "Hedgehog" when your first move is ......... e5.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I forgot that were such a stubborn, know it all. Please cite me to a serious chess expert who says spatial advantage is completely meaningless. While you're at it, cite me to an opening book that recommends retreating your knight back to its original square within the first five moves as a way to gain "dynamic equality".

Another your "straw man" - I did not say that "spatial advantage is completely meaningless". I did say that it does not work in current position where white lacks targets to attack. Also d5 pawn without e-pawn or control over e-file usually gives nothing. Which does not mean that it can`t work in other positions.

I would advice you to show particular lines (or at least plans which will guarantee advantage) which can base your evaluation, instead of your usual demagogy. Without them any claims for advantage are empty words.

Originally posted by Korch
Another your "straw man" - I did not say that "spatial advantage is completely meaningless". I did say that it does not work in current position where white lacks targets to attack. Also d5 pawn without e-pawn or control over e-file usually gives nothing. Which does not mean that it can`t work in other positions.

I would advice you to show particular lines ...[text shortened]... tion, instead of your usual demagogy. Without them any claims for advantage are empty words.

White "has no targets"? Isn't there an unprotected Knight on e4 and an unprotected pawn on e5?

Originally posted by no1marauder
White "has no targets"? Isn't there an unprotected Knight on e4 and an unprotected pawn on e5?

Pawn on e5 is extra pawn which black don`t need to defend letting white to waste tempo taking it. Knight on e4 will have no problems moving to f6 where it will be safe.