MNb wrote on 08/12/11 at 15:49:16:


The book has a chapter on 'Miscellaneous 2nd move defences' (though the Petroff or Phillidor are completely respectable openings). Since they are all covered in one short chapter, it's unlikely that the coverage is sufficient for a decent player.

Sisyphus wrote on 08/12/11 at 11:06:12:


You still need an answer to Black's alternatives to 1...e5. 

SWJediknight wrote on 09/22/10 at 15:03:38:


One point on this:
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 c3 d5 4 Bb5 dxe4 5 Nxe5 Qg5 6 Qa4 Qxg2 7 Bxc6+ bxc6 8 Qxc6+ Kd8 

Quote:


I don't know about that. 13 Nd4 Re8 14 Na3 Qf1 15 Qc6+ Kd8 16 Qb5 Qxb5 17 Naxb5 Bxh2 18 d3 exd3+ 19 Kxd3 Ng4, as in W.Ottenweller-G.Aalderink, email 2005, looks pretty terrible for White really.

Tim Harding has a look at the Ponziani book in these two articles:
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kibitz171.pdf
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kibitz172.pdf

It does focus more on the theory than on the book, but suggests that the book may not be as bad as Carsten Hansen made out.  He agrees that 3...d5 should be met by 4.Qa4, and suggests that 4...f6 and 4...Qd6 lead to roughly equal chances, but it's unclear whether he thinks 4...Bd7 (recommended by John Emms in "Play the Open Games as Black") equalises or not with accurate play.

One criticism I have of his second article is that he "sells" 3...Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.e5 Nd5 too strongly.  I agree that it's a good way for Black to avoid the knife-edge complications of 3...d5 4.Qa4 while keeping some winning chances in a roughly balanced position, and is also conveniently one of the best defences to the Goring Gambit, but I think the choice between 3...Nf6 and 3...d5 remains a matter of taste, as Black can definitely equalise with at least two options following 3...d5 4.Qa4.  I'll be interested to see if anyone tries to defend Black's cause in the dull queenless middlegame line, where Harding suggests that White may actually have the edge.

Yes, the old book was on the 1. e4  d5  2. exd5  Qxd5
3. Nc3   Qa5  4. Nf3  Bf5.  By the way 4, ...Bf5 is a mistake
and best us 4. ...c6.  Emms wrote a great book 
the scandinavian.  Emms has also contributed to Ponziani theory.

TN wrote on 05/10/10 at 12:44:34:


3...Qa5 4 d4 Nf6 5 Nf3 Bf5
this was back in 1987

This was several years ago that I tried to contact Mr. Hansen and his forum and got no response. His analysis was clearly very wrong. 
On another subject Keith Hayward and I are "freethinkers". We think outside the box. We tend to chose openings that
have not been played millions of times. To give one example
in the 7th USCorrespondence Chess Championship I tried to
win with the black pieces. If you will note I am the only
USCCC champ that has ever done that. Most are happy with
about 1/2 draws and 1/2 wins. Another interesting point about not following the tried and true lines--your opponents
are ready for them. There are enough tricks in the Ponziani
to throw off the highest rated players. In the 7th USCCC I
played the Center Counter--1. e4  d5  2. exd5  Qxd5 in four
of my games as Black--I won all 4 games. If anyone can find
an opening or a special line vs an opening that is "sound"
but hardly ever played---that person has an advantage from
the start.

Carsten Hansen is extremely prejudiced. He reviewed my
Ponziani Power book and came up with extremely incorrect
analysis of the variations he chose. On one line he chastized
me for omitting a certain line--but it was omitted as it
loses in 2 moves. On another line [out of 3 lines, I think] he
was just wrong in his analysis. I wrote to Mr. Hansen 3 times and also wrote to the chess organization he represented 3 times asking if I could give a correction--no
response. Now, maybe he is getting "revenge" because I
proved him wrong before [though nobody saw it]. How could
a nearly 300 page book have inadequte analysis? How can
he criticize one line where we gave a ?! but he does not mention the ?!. Chapter 8 of our book makes all previous
Ponziani books obsolete. There is one heck of original analysis in this book. We gave good and bad lines for both
White and Black so a reader who wants to start out can
concentrate on those. Best Regards, Dave Taylor