You picked a strange Philidor thread. There are much better ones. The only line really discussed so far in this one is 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 f5. But you are far more likely to see 3...exd4 or 3...Nd7. - 3...f5 - Ironically, MCO-14's recommendation of 4.exf5 e4 5.Ng5 is far simpler than Sielecki's choice of 4.Bc4"!" (sic). Larsen gave 4.exf5 e4 5.Ng5 Bxf5 6.Nc3 d5 7.f3 "This is the most simple. It's all so simple that it's difficult to find an improvement for black." Despite Sielecki's "!", I always thought of 4.Bc4 as the least clear of white's refutations, and Sielecki doesn't give enough information about it if black knows some theory: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 f5 4.Bc4 exd4 5.Ng5 Nh6 6.O-O (Sielecki stops here saying Re1 etc. "should win") 6...Nc6 7.Re1 f4. There's quite a bit of theory on this, e.g. in Kosten and West. I haven't checked this line, but the point is white might be getting "outbooked".
- 3...Nd7 - MCO-14 is not correct that "some of the sting of the aggressive 7 Ng5 has been removed". Sielecki can be relied on: 4.Bc4 c6 5.O-O Be7 6.dxe5 dxe5 7.Ng5 Bxg5 8.Qh5 Qe7. Every move for both white and black since 3...Nd7 could legitimately be awarded an "!". MCO-14, with 5.Nc3 instead of 5.O-O, gives 9.Bxg5. Sielecki says it's wrong, and offers the improvement 9.Qxg5.
- 3...exd4 - Larsen's Variation. Sielecki gives a great line, but it's very sharp and unless white (a) knows exactly how to proceed, and (b) is not afraid to sacrifice a piece with Nd4-f5, then black has great practical chances. And Sielecki is not much help, because he basically doesn't cover black's most aggressive setup: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nxd4 g6 (Sielecki gives 4...Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.Be3, completely omitting 6.Bg5) 5.Nc3 Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Qd2 O-O 8.O-O-O Re8 9.f3 Nc6 (Sielecki gives only 9...a6 10.g4 b5, or earlier 8...Nc6 9.f3 Nxd4) 10.g4 (10.h4 is probably even stronger. MCO-14 then gives 10...Nxd4 11.Bxd4 Be6 += V.Chernov - Negulescu, Rumania 1995.) 10...Ne5 11.Be2 a6 12.h4 b5 as given by Larsen. Kosten and Bauer also covered lines like this with some dense theory. Black's idea might be refuted or close enough to it, but you won't find out how in Sielecki.
- 3...exd4 - Antoshin's Variation. Sielecki's choice of 6.g3 is much sharper than he lets on, if black chooses 6...d5. For example, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Be7 6.g3 (MCO-14 gives 6.Bf4 which is maybe stronger but less simple) 6...d5 7.e5 Ng4 8.Bg2 c6 9.Bf4 (Sielecki: "I don't see a good reply for black now") 9...Qb6 (This is in Seel's book. Sielecki gives only 9...g5 10.e6 Nxf2 etc.) 10.O-O (Seel gives 10.Na4 Qa5 11.Nc3 Qb6 =. 10.O-O is from Stockfish.) 10...g5 (10...Qxb2 11.Na4 Qa3 12.c3 is risky as heck for black, but is black lost? Hard to say.) 11.e6 gxf4 (Black's point is that the wN/d4 is loose) 12. Na4 Qc7 13. Qxg4 Qe5. White is better here, but not by as much as after Sielecki's 9...g5, and it's still messy. Also in black's sedate line 6...O-O (instead of 6...d5) 7.Bg2 Re8 8.O-O Bf8 9.h3 c6 10.g4!?. If you look in Zude/Hickl they give 10.g4 in the chapter overview, but it's missing from the actual analysis. One line they give is 10.Bf4 Nbd7 11.Qd2 Ne5 from Vachier-Lagrave - Rapport, Biel 2015. Sielecki's 10.g4 nicely sidesteps this setup because of 10...Nbd7? 11.g5. Although I really don't like his 10.g4 d5 for black. 10...d5 only makes sense if black is desperate. Maybe worth a try is 10...Na6 11.Bf4 Nc5 12.Re1 Qb6. I would bet this 6...O-O line is not as unpleasant for black as Sielecki states.
If it were me coming up with a simple white repertoire based on the Scotch Four Knights, I would advocate 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.Bc4, or better 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 exd4 4.Qxd4, or best of all 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 avoiding any nonsense, and only afterwards 3.Nf3. Larsen (1971) Why Not The Philidor Defense?, pages 5, 29 Kosten (1992) Winning with the Philidor, pages 29, 63-64 West (1994) The Philidor Countergambit, pages 28-30 de Firmian (1999) MCO-14, pages 128-130 Bauer (2006) The Philidor Files, pages 76-81 Seel (2007) The Philidor: A Secret Weapon, page 96 Zude/Hickl (2017) Play 1...d6 Against Everything, pages 31, 41-42 Sielecki (2018) Keep It Simple 1.e4, pages 16-23
|