Markovich wrote on 05/30/11 at 15:53:29:
A practical alternative against the Petroff, which also has a lot of sting in it, is 3.Nxe4 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Nc3 Nxc3 6.dxc3. I don't know if you have access to NIC Yearbooks, but it's been considered in some recent ones.
Thanks Markovich. I took a look at these lines on the NIC database and they seem like a viable and increasingly popular approach and suit my style. I'm going to get a copy of the recent yearbook that included a survey of the line to look more closely.
MNb wrote on 05/30/11 at 17:58:02:
The simplest solution is changing your move order:
1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.Nf3 Bb4+ (Nc6 4.Nxd4 and you are happy) 4.Bd2 (4.Nbd2!?)
a) 4...Bc5 5.Bc4 Nc6 6.0-0 Nf6 (Nge7?! 7.Ng5) 7.Bf4 d6 8.Nbd2 with compensation;
b) 4...Qe7 5.Bd3 Nc6 6.0-0 Bxd2 (Bc5 7.e5) 7.Nbxd2 or 7.Qxd2,
c) 4....Bxd2+ 5.Qxd2 (5.Nbxd2) Nh6 6.Bc4 d6 7.0-0 Nc6 8.Nxd4 Nxd4 9.Qxd4 Magdorf-Langner, 1990, 0-0 =.
A plan with castling Queenside might be more attractive; compare 5...d6 (iso Nh6) 6.Nxd4 Nf6 7.Nc3 0-0 8.0-0-0 Re8 9.f3.
The easiest solution is not always the best or GM's would use 2.d4 far more often to reach the Scotch.
Thank you, MNb, for that interesting suggestion on move order. I like some of the lines (especially the Queenside castling) but a few seem problematic to me as you warned. I'll probably stay away from that approach unless I (or someone else) find improvements.
urusov wrote on 05/31/11 at 02:12:07:
Thanks urusov. This approach also seems to have merit and can lead to some interesting positions.
Thank you all for your helpful suggestions! Â
Pages: [1] 
C42-C43: White (Scotch Player) versus Petrov? (Read 25362 times)
