Dave Taylor wrote on 04/29/10 at 11:25:30:


Dave, without commenting on your disputes with Hansen, I congratulate you on your book.   

But actually I had already assumed that all previous Ponziani books were obsolete, since the Ponziani itself is obsolete. 

Sorry, couldn't resist.  Again congratulations on this interesting work.  I looked it over at the High School Nationals, and it looks quite interesting.  The only reason I didn't buy it is that I don't play 1...e5 much anymore.

It certainly isn't necessarily true that someone who plays the Ponziani "wants to avoid theory as soon as possible," and I don't think the opening is particularly suited to that goal.

Interestingly a Dave Taylor just registered on the forum, so I suspect this thread is about to become quite interesting, provided it's the same Taylor associated with the book.

Tops

That's not what you wrote in your previous post. I do not recommend the Ponziani either and won't buy the book. Still I don't get why every single chess player in the world should follow my preferences. Moreover the Ponziani is part of opening theory so deserves scrutiny like any other opening.

boki wrote on 04/09/10 at 07:59:50:


I do not understand the need for this comment :/

If someone is interested in a less common opening why shouldn't they be allowed to buy a book on it?     

After all, avoiding mainline theory isn't the same as avoiding all theory - you just choose something you can handle and won't need to re-evaluate as often as ML-theory...

MNb wrote on 03/30/10 at 21:32:25:


No, he just took apart a few paragraphs in a subvariation the authors had already deemed irrelevant by the use of “?!” (Hansen omitted the significant dubious mark after 7 Nxg6). Apparently the critical lines are 7 Qd4 “!” and 7 Qf3 “!?” (their punctuation).

Also, there's actually a fair bit of original analysis and a lot of it seems quite interesting. It's been doing me pretty well in online thematic games anyway (and down the club) – though nobody has played the line with 5...Ne7 as yet (I've only had 5...Nb8 in that position).

In a perfect world some Grand Master would devote years of his life to playing and studying the Ponziani opening, and then write a book about it. Of course, we all know that is never going to happen. The Ponziani is no more than "a good secondary opening" as Keith Hayward once said. A GM would not spend years working on a surprise weapon.

I am very happy with my copy of "Play the Ponziani". It does not bother me that there is some bad original analysis starting at move 14 in a side line. My opponents and I will probably never get that far before the inaccuracies and blunders begin. I feel that an International correspondence master and FM like Hayward and a former U.S. correspondence champion like David Taylor, both of whom have spent years playing and analyzing  the Ponziani, are qualified to write this book.

Hansen's polemic, in my opinion, leaves the reader with a twisted vision of the book.

"Play the Ponziani" is not a "starting out" book. It covers all variations in detail. Some of us like to decide for ourselves what lines to play.

There is no chapter on history. But, many times attribution is given to the first to play a line.

The book is up to date. In scanning the first 100 pages I found 19 references to games played after 2000. One game was played in 2009. There were many moves and lines from correspondence games.

There was one mention of a D.Taylor-MChess game. MChess deviated from the stem line on move 14. There was one internet game with unidentified players. I found three references to Taylor games where his opponent deviated on move 8, and twice on move 11. 

There really is not a huge amount of original analysis by the authors.  Like most chess books, the bulk of the commentary was from the players, annotators or attributed to other books or articles. 

Click on search inside the book.
Amazon