Talk:Ponziani Opening

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Carlsen plays just about everything, so that means nothing. Toccata quarta (talk) 05:00, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mid-importance? 

message: 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)
replies: text: '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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Caro Variation

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

message: The  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: I agree ("the Ponziani" is not editorially accurate). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there a BCO 2 source for "the Ponziani" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Magnus Carlsen