Hi,

I will also play 3.d4 against the Petroff. On 3... exd4 I would play 4.Bc4, transfering the game into the Urusov-Gambit. I think this is not the type of game that Petroff players want to have.

So, I have to find something against 3...Nxe4.

At the moment the reference game for me is the following:

[Event "Kolkata op 3rd"]
[Site "Kolkata"]
[Date "2008.03.31"]
[Round "8"]
[White "Konguvel, Ponnuswamy"]
[Black "Neelotpal, Das"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C43"]
[WhiteElo "2394"]
[BlackElo "2486"]
[PlyCount "113"]
[EventDate "2008.03.24"]
[EventType "swiss"]
[EventRounds "10"]
[EventCountry "IND"]
[Source "ChessBase"]
[SourceDate "2008.05.06"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. d4 Nxe4 4. Bd3 d5 5. dxe5 Nc6 6. O-O Bg4 7. Nc3 Nxc3 8.
bxc3 Bc5 9. Rb1 Rb8 10. Re1 O-O 11. h3 Bh5 12. g4 Bg6 13. Bf5 Ne7 14. Bg5 Kh8
15. Nd4 Qe8 16. Qd3 Bb6 17. Re2 c6 18. Kh1 Bc7 19. f4 a6 20. Rbe1 c5 21. Bxg6
Nxg6 22. Nf5 Bd8 23. Nxg7 Kxg7 24. Bf6+ Kg8 25. f5 Bxf6 26. exf6 Qc6 27. fxg6
d4+ 28. Kg1 Qxf6 29. gxh7+ Kh8 30. Rf1 Qg7 31. Rf5 dxc3 32. Rxc5 Rbd8 33. Qxc3
Qxc3 34. Rxc3 Rd7 35. Kg2 Kxh7 36. Kg3 Rfd8 37. Re5 f6 38. Re6 Kg7 39. Rb6 Re7
40. Rf3 Rf8 41. h4 Rc7 42. h5 Rff7 43. c3 Rc4 44. Rb4 Rc6 45. Rd4 Rfc7 46. Kh4
b5 47. Rfd3 Rxc3 48. Rd7+ Rxd7 49. Rxd7+ Kg8 50. Rd6 Kg7 51. Rxa6 b4 52. Ra7+
Kg8 53. h6 Rc5 54. Rb7 Ra5 55. Rxb4 Kh7 56. Rf4 Ra6 57. Kh5 1-0

I think there are a lot of improvements in this game but I like the plan with g4,Bf5, Bg5. Together with the article on the kenilworthchessclub.org-Website this could be a weapon that fits me against the Petroff.

@Justinhorton: Do you have any experience with this line, because I know nobody who plays Petroff in our club? I had a look at your variation with 5...Nd7 but I didn´t liked it. I don´t know the reason but I will have a look.

MNb wrote on 06/02/10 at 10:17:31:


Thanks for the offer, but I managed to track down the thread after all.

Regards,

Toppy

I didn't as I have saved the analysis. If you'd like me to I can post it here.

I quite agree that the mainlines of the Petroff are fascinating.  Even sidelines which have been advocated for White (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 d6 4. Nc4 and 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 d6 4. Nf3 Nxe4 5. c4) are sufficiently unbalanced to interest an amateur like myself.

So why don't I play it all that often, and why is it not so popular with us fish?  Quite simply, more often than not, the amateur with the White pieces will either play the popular 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Nc3, or just play 3.Nc3 and head back to the 4 Knights.

In the case of the former, frankly, it's just not so easy to visualize how Black is going to play to win, at home or at the board.  The system might not fill one with terror, but in the opinion of this patzer, it's often a case of Black striving to equalize first, and draw second.

And the latter?  Why did I play the Petroff if I was just going to run into the 4 Knights so often, when I could have played 2...Nc6 and offered my opponent the chance to enter the more fertile ground of the Scotch, Italian or Spanish game?  Sorry, but 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nc3 Bb4 scarcely seems that much more invigorating.  As a mediocre player facing mediocre opponents, I want to win with the Black pieces as much as I do the White, and entering the complications of the 2 Knights, the Mieses variation of the Scotch and the closed Lopez maximizes my chances of doing so, in my eyes.  

 All that and I didn't even avoid the Belgrade Gambit, huh! <forum humour>

 I don't subscribe to the notion that describing the Petroff as dull or boring is a patzerish verdict.  It may be a silly opinion, but one voiced in print by at least two English GMs I can think of.  Perhaps, rather than the Petroff having acquired the image of a dull opening due to the limited ambition of Black players at a high level, the Petroff has this stigma because of the cautious approach of White players at a much lower level.  Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

 And no, I don't believe even relatively weak club players know all that much theory nowadays, either.

 All that having been said, Chessaddict at least has me looking at 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Nc3 NxN again from the black side, so who knows what the future might bring... Thanks for that post.

tafl wrote on 03/02/09 at 14:35:15:

Well that's not quite true, since it's Black's move after 4.Nf3 in the French Exchange, but it's White's move after 5...d5.  So it's apples and oranges.  But if you continue from 4.Nf3 with Nf6, then in both cases it's White's move.  So it's as if Black had one extra move in the Exchange French and used it to place his knight on e4.  The important thing is that this e4-knight compares not with a g8-knight, but with an f6-knight.  I think that between the two, the knight clearly is better on f6.  So I don't think that White's theoretical task in the Petroff, although it may be difficult, is insurmountable.

Further I disagree that White's basic plan here with Bd3, 0-0, c2-c4 is one particularly difficult for a club player to execute.

Its not so hard to prove the e4 knight mispaced is it? In the main lines you basically just develop and black can't mantain it. That leads to those positions with white having a hanging c/d pawn center vs black pieces. 

I don't think that those are easy for black to defend as the well prepared super GMs often make them look At worst both sides get very active pieces so lots of fun calculation etc in the absence of masses of learnt theory. In fact I've always just got fun games from playing the main lines.

One problem for your grandmaster is 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.d4 Nxe4 4.Bd3 d5 5.Nxe5, when he can't play 5...Nd7 against amateur because of the draw after  6.Nxf7, while 5...Bd6 6.0-0 is rather slippery. So, when countless GMs play 5...Nd7, it is in fact a draw offer, unless Yusupov & al say otherwise ?

PS. don't fool yourself with terms such as "dull" or "boring", you will see no strong player using them. In my experience they just mean "I don't have a clue what to do", and you'll just drop them off as you improve. Clues abound in forcing positions, that's why youngsters seek them and elders avoid them, in my feeble opinion.