spam fritter wrote on 01/03/09 at 13:38:53:


I don't think that the main line after 3...Bb4 (4. Nxe5 0-0 5. Be2 Re8 6. Nd3 Bxc3 7. dc Nxe4) can be described as "not remotely drawish," but I have the feeling that many "club players" who play 3. Nc3 would tend not to know/find such moves ...

As for the queenless variation, I'm reminded of a Bundesliga game a couple of years ago in which an IM played it with White against a GM but was outplayed and lost.   

On the queenless middlegame you might want to remember that Karpov won against Timman with black so it's not too bad.

1 No 

2 Certainly

Compare d4 d6 c4 e5.

Club players with queens off are usually pretty clueless. Only good when using em with the bigger bits, not on their own.  Takes time, but result not in doubt.

As a Caro-kann player who should probably start to play 1...e5, maybe the transition to the Petroff (in terms of 'boring' positions may not be that drastic!

For more than 20 years I have refused to play 2.Nf3 as White and 2.Nf3 Nf6 as Black.
Alas I do not trust the Cochrane Gambit because of 4.Nxf7 Kxf7 5.d4 c5!
So my answers on the two questions are:
1. no.
2. no.

The Petroff is not necessarily a drawing weapon but rather just a very, very, very (you get my point) solid opening. Kasparov LOST to Karpov with white in this opening so it surely can't be entirely drawish. The problem is that in the main lines w/ 3. Nxe5, if white wants to avoid the "drawing" lines, he must be careful not to overextend or launch a premature attack. I never understood why 3. d4 never caught on as much at the GM level. In my view, it seems that White is more likely to get an edge than he is in the 3. Nxe5 lines and the theory of the 3. d4 lines is about half that of the 3. Nxe5 lines. I have heard claims that the 5...Nd7 line is supposed to equalize for Black but looking at some of GM Nigel Davies' recommendations in the e-book, I have my doubts.

I would never consider playing the queenless endgame not so much because my endgame skills are weak, but because I never play that line whereas my opponent would probably be well prepared for it. Against a weaker opponent, I could probably win the endgame (it depends how much "weaker" you mean) but I wouldn't pick the Petroff in the first place because of the drawing lines. This has become a problem with other openings such as the Pirc, Grunfeld, and Marshall Attack in that Black cannot realistically hope for a win if white is content with a draw (with players of approximately level strength or who are only separated by a few hundred ELO pts. Obviously, Kasparov could probably beat any amateur with any of those openings!).

In summation, I think if you want a placid, equal, and, in my opinion, boring opening, pick the Petroff at club level. The problem is that you can easily be forced into "drawn" positions by weaker players who still have enough endgame skill to hold the draw.

I'm sure you have all noticed how popular the Petroff currently is at the GM level.  Many of the main lines are quite exciting for both sides.  Recall that tactical wizards Marshall and Pillsbury both liked this defense.  I've always felt that the reason the Petroff never caught on at the club level is the fear of yielding an easy draw to a weaker player.  So I'm asking:

1. If were paired White against a much stronger player who played the Petroff against you, would you play Qe2 hoping to hold the endgame?   

2. If you were Black against a weaker player do you feel that you could outplay him/her in the ensuing queenless middle game?  Sure Spassky could hold the white position against anybody, but what about the average club player?