As it happens Aagaard got the chance to test this out a few months later:



The opening seemed quite good for White anyway. Fritz suggests 18 Rd3 or 18 Rd4 as possible improvements (intending to switch to the h-file).

Typo, I meant 18.Kc2 indeed.

Bd7 is not bad as only one black pawn is fixated - on a black square. Anyhow Black will play 23...Bd4 after which White cannot advance the queenside pawns properly and Black is ready for ...c5. Capturing ep will activate Bd7 while not capturing it will stifle all white ambitions on the queenside. As soon Black plays Ke7 this King is just as active. White has nothing.

Anonymous3 wrote on 05/06/11 at 20:41:13:

Go ahead, make my day. Just repeating doesn't make something true. I don't withdraw any of my words above.

Having written that, the quality of your last reaction is much better, even if it contains much less moves.

Fllg wrote on 05/06/11 at 18:40:12:

Ironically, I've faced it 3 times as black, all against the same much higher rated opponent (around 350 rating points, USCF), and I scored 2.5/3 against it, with no opening preparation whatsoever. I think I'm the reason that guy gave up playing the Ponz.

FYI, I played 3. ... d5 the first time, without knowing that it was one of the two main book moves. I've since decided that line is lots of fun, so I'll stick with it if it ever comes up again in the future.

Frankly, I don´t understand what point you are trying to make here.

Surely there are more attractive ways to play for Black against the Ponziani but even if White has a very small plus in the lines you suggested the positions are fully playable for Black.

Also I don´t think it is "easy to understand why White is better" since at best White only has the better side of a draw but no way to force a substantial advantage. This hardly qualifies as a refutation. Perhaps you can enlighten us here?

This is a minor line in a very minor opening. I have never ever faced the Ponziani in 27 years of tournament practice and this is unlikely to change since there are far more attractive ways to play for White.

I think it is great that people publish analysis they have carried out with help of Fritz or Rybka. That's how we work today.

It would also be great if ”White is better” or ”=” after these analysis could be replaced by verbal judgement telling why I (and Rybka) think ”White is better” or why ”=”. In that case human is adding value to the machine and there is a statement that really could be discussed. (It also goes for a lot of opening books, I think.)

I hope this last does not imply that someone shouldn't use silicon to help his analysis. It's a tricky business, but nowadays it's really the only way just about everyone does home analysis.

1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 c3 Nf6 4 d4 Nxe4 5 d5 Ne7 6 Nxe5 Ng6 7 Nxg6 hxg6 8 Nd2! GM Tony Kosten analyzed this move in his June 2007 Chesspub. update. The move might not look like anything special at first but once you see the variations you'll hopefully appreciate the subtleties of this move and agree with me that it's actually a great move that gives White a slight advantage. Black's position is passive and has to worry about the safety of his king. Even if it's not better for White, White has the easier position to play and it's actaully very tricky for Black to meet correctly if he's unprepared. 

In the thread "Beating the Open Games 2nd Edition" (http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1214079417/15) (which is locked and is why I can't post this there) GM Jacob Aagaard said it was just a random move in response to why Mihail Marin didn't adress this in the 2nd edition of "Beating the Open Games". He tried to give improvements to Tony's analysis to support his claim but Tony said "I don't think it is as easy for Black as Jacob seems to think" and I don't think his analysis is very strong. 

I'm not a subsriber to Chesspub. anymore so I don't have Tony's analysis but most of the following is my attempt to refute Aagaard's analysis and I think most of the moves he gave are moves that Tony didn't mention so it doesn't matter that I don't have Tony's analysis.

a) 8...Nxd2 9 Bxd2 now:

a1) 9...Bc5 10 Bd3 (Tony said "Maybe 10 Qf3 is even more accurate") 10...d6 11 Qf3 Qh4 12 0-0-0 Bg4 13 Qe4+ Kf8 14 f3 Bd7 Aagaard assesses this position = but I think White is slightly better, for example, 15 Qxh4 Rxh4 16 Rde1 Rh5 17 c4 c6 18 b4 Bf2 19 Re2 Bg3 20 dxc6 Bxc6 21 h3 d5 22 c5 d4 23 Kb2 Re8 24 Rxe8+ Kex8 25 Kb3 +=
a2) 9...Bd6 10 Qg4! +=
a3) 9...b6 10 Qf3! Bd6 (10...Qf6 11 Qxf6 gxf6 12 Bf4 +=) 11 0-0-0 Bb7 (Black's last 2 moves can be reversed) 12 h4! Qf6 (12...Rxh4 Bb5!) 13 Qxf6 (13 Qe4+ Qe7 14 Qa4 Bxd5 is an interesting gambit that is unclear but at least = for White. 15 Re1 Be6 16 Bd3) 13...gxf6 14 Be3 +=

b) 8...Nc5 9 Nf3 +=

c) 8...Nf6 9 Nc4 Qe7+ (9...d6 10 Be2 Be7 11 0-0 0-0 12 Re1 Re8 Aagaard says this position "is not giving White anything to speak about. Fritz is wrong here, for once. But yes, it does look a bit passive." However, Rybka 3 also likes White and I think Black's passivity is exactly what White a small advantage) 10 Be2 b5 11 Ne3 Bb7 (11...Qe5 12 g3! Bb7 13 0-0 Bc5 14 Bf3 0-0 15 a4 +=) 12 0-0 Qc5 Aagaard says this position "looks very unclear to me, and in no way worse for Black". It's a very interesting position but I think it's slightly better for White after 13 h3! Bd6 14 a4 a6 15 Bf3 0-0 16 Qd3 Be5 17 Re1 +=